# Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22260 of 1987
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suredra-narain-singh-babu-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41887
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Holdings Act, 1960-Section 10-Notice
declaring
surplus
land
issued
on
17.11.83-questioned on ground after
expiry of two years from the date of
enforcement of Act-even on amended
Act-Notice impugned after 8 years not
proper-held-section 9(1) contemplates
general notice-Section 9 (2-A) requires
statement
of
those
who
had
not
subjected
to
any
notice
earlierpetitioner
never
submitted
any
declaration-continued his possessioncan not be allowed to take plea of
limitation .

Held; Para 22

This Court, therefore, records that the
plea that the notice under Section 10(2)
being not issued within reasonable time
i. e. 2 would render the proceedings bad
years does not appeal to the Court in
the facts of the case. The petitioner
himself
failed
to
carry
out
the
requirements of Section 9(1) or 9(2) by
not filing his statement within the time
provided under the said section.

(B). U.P. Imposition of ceiling on land
holding Act 1960-Section-4-A-irrigatednon
irrigated
plots-authorities
specifically held the plot in question
under command area of Betwa Canalgoes to show the irrigated plots non
availability of Khasra entries of 1378,
1379 and 1380 fasli-not mean that
authority can not determined such
issue-in
said
back
ground
non
availability of entries of Khasra-not of
much relevance.

Held: Para 24

It may be recorded that the relevant
Khasras of 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli
were not brought on record by the
petitioner or by the state. It was not the
case of the petitioner that such Khasra
entries
were
available
and/or
be
examined. Section 4-A of Act, 1960
require consideration of the aforesaid
Khasras entries and such other records,
as may be considered necessary, as well
as for spot inspection being made for
determination
as
to
whether
a
particular plot of land is irrigated or not.
Merely because the Khasras entries of
1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli were not on
record/not available, it will not mean
that the Prescribed Authority could not
have determined the issue qua the plots
being irrigated or not with reference to
the other material on record. It has
been found as a matter of fact that the
Plot Nos. 169 and 172 were situate
within the command area of Betwa
Canal, which was Schedule-I canal.
Reference to Khasra entries of 1388,
1389 and 1390 Fasli is not of much
relevance
in
the
said
factual
background.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 7SCC 667; (1976) 2 SCC 181; 1997
(88) RD 385
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others
469

## Text

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

9. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22260 of 1987

Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D. Singh
Sri D.P. Singh
Sri Kunal Ravi Singh
Sri V.K.S.Chaudhary
Sri V.P.Pathak

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

(A). U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960-Section 10-Notice
declaring
surplus
land
issued
on
17.11.83-questioned on ground after
expiry of two years from the date of
enforcement of Act-even on amended
Act-Notice impugned after 8 years not
proper-held-section 9(1) contemplates
general notice-Section 9 (2-A) requires
statement
of
those
who
had
not
subjected
to
any
notice
earlierpetitioner
never
submitted
any
declaration-continued his possessioncan not be allowed to take plea of
limitation .

Held; Para 22

This Court, therefore, records that the
plea that the notice under Section 10(2)
being not issued within reasonable time
i. e. 2 would render the proceedings bad
years does not appeal to the Court in
the facts of the case. The petitioner
himself
failed
to
carry
out
the
requirements of Section 9(1) or 9(2) by
not filing his statement within the time
provided under the said section.

(B). U.P. Imposition of ceiling on land
holding Act 1960-Section-4-A-irrigatednon
irrigated
plots-authorities
specifically held the plot in question
under command area of Betwa Canalgoes to show the irrigated plots non
availability of Khasra entries of 1378,
1379 and 1380 fasli-not mean that
authority can not determined such
issue-in
said
back
ground
non
availability of entries of Khasra-not of
much relevance.

Held: Para 24

It may be recorded that the relevant
Khasras of 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli
were not brought on record by the
petitioner or by the state. It was not the
case of the petitioner that such Khasra
entries
were
available
and/or
be
examined. Section 4-A of Act, 1960
require consideration of the aforesaid
Khasras entries and such other records,
as may be considered necessary, as well
as for spot inspection being made for
determination
as
to
whether
a
particular plot of land is irrigated or not.
Merely because the Khasras entries of
1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli were not on
record/not available, it will not mean
that the Prescribed Authority could not
have determined the issue qua the plots
being irrigated or not with reference to
the other material on record. It has
been found as a matter of fact that the
Plot Nos. 169 and 172 were situate
within the command area of Betwa
Canal, which was Schedule-I canal.
Reference to Khasra entries of 1388,
1389 and 1390 Fasli is not of much
relevance
in
the
said
factual
background.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 7SCC 667; (1976) 2 SCC 181; 1997
(88) RD 385
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others
469
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary,
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi
Singh, Advocate and Standing Counsel on
behalf of the State. Nobody is present for
the respondent no. 4.

2. Petitioner before this Court seeks
quashing of the order dated 31.01.1985
passed by the Prescribed Authority under
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as Act, 1960) as well as the order of the
Appellate
Authority
dated
13.11.1987
dismissing the appeal.

3. Before adverting to the facts of the
petition it is appropriate to record that the
present writ petition was dismissed under a
judgment dated 08th May, 2007. The
petitioner made a review application, which
was granted by the Hon'ble Judge on 06th
February, 2009 and the writ petition was
restored to its original number. Hence this
petition has again been placed for hearing
before this Court.

4. Fact in short giving rise to the
present writ petition are as follows:

A notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act, 1960 was issued by the Prescribed
Authority on 17.11.1983, which was duly
served upon the petitioner indicating that
the tenure holder had 8.1 acres of irrigated
land as surplus. Petitioner filed objections to
the aforesaid notice, which contained three
basic objections i. e. (a) that the notice has
been issued to the petitioner only on
17.11.1983 when such proceedings under
Section 10(2) should have been initiated
within reasonable time, as no period of
limitation has been prescribed under the
Act, 1960 for the purpose, this reasonable
period cannot extend to nearly 8 years to be
counted from the date amendments were
introduced in the Act, 1960 by U.P. Act No.
20 of 1976.

(b) that a sale deed dated 27.11.1971
was executed by the petitioner with the
permission of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation. The same was a bona fide
transaction and therefore the land so
transferred was liable to be excluded.

(c) Plot Nos. 169 and 172 had wrongly
been shown as irrigated.

It was also stated that 12.19 acres of
land was exclusively recorded in the name
of Brij Kishore, who had not been issued
notice under Rule 8. In order to keep the
record straight it may be recorded that Sri
Brij Kishore filed an independent objection
claiming a right over Gata No. 65. Brij
Kishore has been impleaded as respondent
no. 4 in the present writ petition.

5. The Prescribed Authority, after
recording the evidence and after considering
the case pleaded by the parties, vide order
dated 31.01.1985 held that the objections
raised by the petitioner and Brij Kishore
were unfounded. He held that the petitioner
had 8.18 acres of land as surplus.

6. Not being satisfied with the order
so passed, the petitioner filed an appeal
under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. Brij
Kishore (Respondent no. 4) also filed an
independent appeal. Both the appeals were
clubbed together and dismissed under one
common judgment dated 13th November,
1987. Hence this petition.

It may be recorded that nobody is
present
on
behalf
of
Brij
Kishore
(respondent no. 4) nor the Court has been
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
informed about any other writ petition
having been filed by Brij Kishore.

7. Before this Court Sri V.K.S.
Chaudhary, Senior Advocate has raised two
grounds
for
challenging
the
orders
impugned. Firstly, that although no time
limit is fixed under Section 10(2) of Act,
1960 for issuance of a notice but such a
power can be exercised only within
reasonable time. He submits that U.P. Act
No. 20 of 1976 was published in the official
gazette on 03rd May, 1976. It was made
effective from 10th October, 1975 and
therefore any proceedings in pursuance to
the said Amending Act could have been
taken within reasonable period, which if
read with reference to other provisions of
Act, 1960 would be a period of two years.
Since in the facts of the case notice has been
issued after 8 years, the entire proceedings
are bad, as the reasonable period cannot
extend to 8 years.

8. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the cases of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk
Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs. K. Supresh
Reddy and others; (2003) 7 SCC 667
(Paragraph 12 and 13), State of H.P. And
others vs. Rajkumar Brijender Singh and
others; (2004) 10 SCC 585, as well as M/s
S.B. Gurbaksh Singh vs. Union of India
and others; (1976) 2 SCC 181.

9. He clarifies that there had been
three stages for imposition of ceiling on
land holding in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The first stage commenced with the
introduction of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961 i. e.
the principal Act. The second stage stood
initiated with the issuance of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1973, whereby amendments were
made in Section 9 and other corresponding
provisions.
The
Amending
Act
also
contains transitory provision, whereunder
two years time limit had been fixed for redetermination of the ceiling limits, and the
third stage stood commenced with the
introduction of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 i.e.
with effect from 10.10.1975.

10. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that under Section 13-A of Act, 1960 a
period of two years from the date of
notification under Section 14 has been
provided for rectification of a mistake.
Under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No. 2 of
1975 (Transitory Provision) a period of 2
years has been provided for redetermination
of ceiling limits under the amended
provisions. Lastly under Section 13(3) of
the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1975 (Transitory
Provision) in respect of cases already
decided before 10.10.1975, a period of two
years have been notified for redetermination
of the ceiling limits. The State Legislature
has found this period of two years to be the
fair and reasonable period for reopening of
the orders already made and this period,
according to the petitioner, should be the
maximum period for exercise of powers
under Section 10(2).

11. Since in the facts of the case
notice has been issued after nearly 8 years
under Section 10(2), he submits that the
same cannot be considered to be a
reasonable period for exercise of power by
the authorities. The proceedings should,
therefore, fall on this ground alone in view
of the law referred to above.

12. The second ground raised before
this Court is that both the authorities have
taken into consideration the Khasra entries
of the 1388, 1389 and 1390 Fasli for
arriving at a conclusion that Plot No. 169
and 172 were irrigated. He submits that the
Khasra entries of 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others
471
alone
could
have
been
taken
into
consideration. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of Badi Bahu vs. State of U.P. and others;
1997(88) RD 385.

13. Standing Counsel in reply
contends that Section 9(1) and 9(2) of Act
1960 provides for issuance of a general
notice in response whereof every tenure
holder is required under law to submit his
statement qua the surplus land possessed by
him. It is only because of the default
committed by such recorded tenure holder
by not responding to the general notice
under Section 9(1) and 9(2) of Act, 1960
that the Prescribed Authority has to exercise
his power under Section 10. It is therefore
contended that in the facts of the case the
plea that the Court may determine two years
as the reasonable period for exercise of
power under Section 10(2), after issuance of
general notice under Section 9(1) or 9(2), is
wholly misplaced. He further clarifies that
during all this intervening period i. e. from
the date of issuance of general notice under
Section 9(1) or 9(2) till the the date of
issuance of notice under Section 10(2) to
the petitioner, he continued to enjoy the
land which was surplus with him, and
therefore it cannot be said that any rights of
the petitioner are adversely affected because
of some delay in issuance of notice under
Section 10(2).

With regard to second contention of
the petitioner it is contended that under
Section 5(2) explanation, of Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act, 1953') it has been clarified that
proceedings under Act of 1960 shall not be
deemed to be proceedings in respect of
declaration of right or interest in any land.
Meaning thereby that the proceedings under
the Ceiling Act will not stand abated
because of issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land
Holdings Act. Section 30(b) of the Act No.
8 of 1953 clarifies that the rights of the
tenure holder entering into possession over
the Chak would be the same as he had in his
original holding together with such other
benefits of irrigation from a private source,
till such source exists, as the former tenure
holder of the plots comprising the Chak had
in regard to them. He, therefore, submits
that irrespective of the consolidation
proceedings the ceiling limits of the
petitioner have rightly been determined. In
the facts of the case authorities have
recorded a categorical finding that Plot No.
169 and 172 were irrigated with reference to
the fact that the plots lay within the
command area of Betwa River Canal
covered by clause thirdly of Section 4-A of
the Act, 1960.

14. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the
records of the writ petition.

15. So far as the first contention raised
on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it
may be recorded that it is not the case of the
petitioner that a general notice under
Section 9(1) or 9(2) of the Act, 1960 was
not issued or that the petitioner filed his
statement as required thereunder. Therefore,
in the facts of the case provisions of Section
10 were fully attracted and a notice was
issued to the petitioner under Section 10(2)
in accordance with law.

Section 9, as amended from time to
time, takes care of both the situations i. e.
(a) after publication of general notice under
Section 9(1) under the principal Act, and (b)
after issuance of general notice under
Section 9(2) as added by Act No. 18 of
1973.
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

16. Section 9(2) proviso contemplates
issuance of individual notice to the tenure
holder
by
the
Prescribed
Authority
irrespective of the fact as to whether any
general notice had been issued under
Section 9(2) for the area or not.

Section 9(2-A) of the Act, 1960
contemplates a contingency where the
recorded tenure holder, having surplus land
on 24.01.1971 or thereafter, has not
submitted his statement as required under
general notice under Section 9(2) and
against him no proceedings under Act, 1960
were pending as on 10th October, 1975.
Such a tenure holder has to submit his
statement referred to in Section 9(2) within
30 days from the said date.

17. From a joint reading of the
aforesaid provisions it shall be clear that
Section 9(1) contemplates a general notice
at the first instance. Thereafter, with the
amendment in parent Act vide Act No. 18
of 1973 publication of a fresh general notice
under Section 9(2) was provided. Proviso to
Section 9(2) permitted the Prescribed
Authority to issue individual notice to
tenure holders for filing their statement
irrespective of the general notice published.

Section 9(2-A) requires filing of
statement by the persons like the petitioner
who had not submitted their statement and
in respect of whom no proceedings under
the Act, 1960 were pending on 10th
October, 1975 i. e. the date on which U.P.
Act No. 20 of 1976 came into force. The
section makes filing of the return necessary
within 30 days from 10th October, 1975 qua
the surplus land held by the tenure holder
and his family members on 24.01.1971 or
thereafter
including
the
acquired
or
disposed of land between 24.01.1971 to
October 10, 1975 and for its inclusion.

18. Section 10 confers a power upon
the Prescribed Authority to prepare the
statement qua the persons who do not
furnish their statement under Section 9,
indicating the individual plots to be taken as
surplus and thereafter to serve a notice in
that regard under Section 10(2). For
exercise of power under Section 10(2) no
period of limitation has been provided.

19. It is no doubt true that under
Section 13-A two years period from the
date of issuance of notification under
Section 14(4) has been provided for
rectification of any mistake apparent on the
face of record. Similarly, under Section 9 of
U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975 (Transitory
provision) a period of two years had been
provided for redetermination of the ceiling
limits under the Amended Act, and lastly
under Section 31(3) of the U.P. Act No. 20
of 1976 (Transitory Provision) a period of
two years is provided for redetermination of
the surplus land in accordance with the
provisions of the Act qua cases already
decided before 10.10.1975.

20. It will be seen that all these three
provisions
pertain
to
redetermination/recalculation of the ceiling
limits or for correction of the mistakes in
orders determining the ceiling limits of a
tenure holder. It is in respect of these
contingencies only a period of two years has
been provided as limitation. The legislature
was aware of the aforesaid provisions, yet in
its own wisdom it decided not to provide
any limitation for exercise of power under
Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The
High Court cannot legislate and lay down
that power under Section 10(2) has to be
exercised within two years of the date from
which the tenure holder was required to file
his statement under Section 9(1) or 9(2) of
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V. State of U.P. and others
473
the Act, 1960. The plea, that such limitation
of 2 years should be read in the section for
exercise of power under Section 10(2) as
reasonable period, also does not appeal to
the Court.

21. The judgments relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner deal with either
exercise of suo moto or revisional power for
correcting the orders passed earlier. The
judgments
are,
therefore,
clearly
distinguishable. Orders, which are passed
earlier settled the rights of the parties and it
is in this background that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that the
suo moto exercise of power/exercise of
revisional power for re-opening of earlier
order, settling the rights of the parties,
cannot be exercised after an unreasonable
period.

However, in same judgments the
Apex Court has explained that what
would be the reasonable period has to be
determined in the facts of each case. In
the facts of the case in hand there has
been no determination of the surplus land
at the first instance and the petitioner
throughout continued to enjoy the land,
which he should himself have surrendered
by filing a statement under Section 9 as
surplus land. Therefore, the delay in
issuance of notice under Section 10(2) to
the petitioner has been to his benefit and
there has been no adjudication of his
rights at any point of time earlier.

22. This Court, therefore, records
that the plea that the notice under Section
10(2) being not issued within reasonable
time i. e. 2 would render the proceedings
bad years does not appeal to the Court in
the facts of the case. The petitioner
himself
failed
to
carry
out
the
requirements of Section 9(1) or 9(2) by
not filing his statement within the time
provided under the said section.

23. So far as the issue of Plot No.
169 and 172 being un-irrigated is
concerned, suffice is to record that the
Prescribed Authority under the impugned
order had categorically recorded that the
plots were situate within the command
area of Betwa Canal, which as per the
notification dated 08.09.1971, published
in
the
official
gazette
dated
20th
September, 1991, is Schedule-I category
canal. Therefore, in view of Section 4-A
thirdly it has rightly been held that the
land, being within the command area of
lift irrigation canal, had to be treated as
irrigated.

24. It may be recorded that the
relevant Khasras of 1378, 1379 and 1380
Fasli were not brought on record by the
petitioner or by the state. It was not the
case of the petitioner that such Khasra
entries
were
available
and/or
be
examined. Section 4-A of Act, 1960
require consideration of the aforesaid
Khasras entries and such other records, as
may be considered necessary, as well as
for spot inspection being made for
determination as to whether a particular
plot of land is irrigated or not. Merely
because the Khasras entries of 1378, 1379
and 1380 Fasli were not on record/not
available, it will not mean that the
Prescribed Authority could not have
determined the issue qua the plots being
irrigated or not with reference to the other
material on record. It has been found as a
matter of fact that the Plot Nos. 169 and
172 were situate within the command area
of Betwa Canal, which was Schedule-I
canal. Reference to Khasra entries of
1388, 1389 and 1390 Fasli is not of much
relevance in the said factual background.
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

25.

In
the
totality
of
the
circumstances brought on record, it is
held that the Prescribed Authority was
right in recording that Plot Nos. 169 and
172 were irrigated in view of the fact they
were situate in effective command area of
Betwa Canal, a Schedule-I Canal.

26. This Court may further clarify
that any change in the plots because of the
consolidation operation shall not in any
way adversely affect the findings recorded
qua the original land holding of the
petitioner being irrigated, inasmuch as
Section 30 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 clarifies that from the
date a tenure holder enters into possession
of Chak allotted to him shall be deemed to
have entered into possession with same
rights, title, interest and liability, as he had
in the original holdings together with such
other benefits of irrigation from a private
source, till such source exists. In view of
the aforesaid Section 30(b) of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the
petitioner cannot take benefit of mere
change in the plot numbers due to
consolidation operation. It is not the case
of the petitioner that area of his land
holdings has been reduced because of such
consolidation operation and he should be
given benefit of such reduction in area.

27.

In
the
totality
of
the
circumstances on record, this Court finds
no good ground to interfere. The writ
petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands discharged.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24777 of 2011

Lakhan Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of ceiling on Land
Holding
Act-1960-Section
14(1)(e)-
ceiling appeal admitted-stay application
rejected-considering language without
deciding appeal-possession of surplus
land can not be taken by Collectorrejection
of
prayer
of
stay
from
dispossession-not
proper-writ
court
itself granted interim protection.

Held: Para 7

Even otherwise in such matters where an
appeal is filed and the same has been
admitted, the same presumes a prima
facie
case
of
the
petitioner.
The
appellate authority should therefore not
refuse to exercise discretion for granting
interim relief as indicated in the case of
Mahmood Rais V. State of U.P. reported
in
2009(5)
ADJ
529.
Learned
Commissioner himself has admitted the
appeal and therefore the rejection of the
stay application is unjustified.
Case law discussed:
2009(5) ADJ 529

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P.Sahi,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.