# Virendra Deep Singh and others v. District Magistrate, Rampur, and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 466
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14735 of 2011
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-deep-singh-and-others-v-district-magistrate-rampur-and-others-41886
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act-Section-11-A-Petitioner's
land declared surplus-while they became
Seerdars-thereafter Bhumindhar under
Z.A. & L.R. Act-during consolidation they
have been allotted Chak-and in are
possession-held-pending
disposal
of
objections-interim
protection
from
dispossession given.

Held: Para 7

Relying on the said decisions, it is urged
that even otherwise this Court has
acknowledged that recorded and even
unrecorded tenure holders are entitled
to be heard in the ceiling proceedings
and objections under Section 11 (2) have
to be disposed of before any other
remedy is availed of by a person claiming
rights. Sri R.C. Singh has invited the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 32,
33 and 34 of the decision in the case of
Virendra Deep Singh and others Vs.
District Magistrate, Rampur, and others,
2010 (10) ADJ 646 (DB), to urge that the
objections under Section 11 (2) are
obviously
subsequent
to
the
determination of surplus land which
entitles a tenure holder aggrieved to file
an objection.

## Text

466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
U.P. and others reported in 2002 (3) AWC
2271.

11. Even otherwise, a Division Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal No. 118 of
2011 decided on 27.1.2011 has held as
follows:

"According to us, there is a difference
between right and expectation. Definitely
an institution has a right to impart
education but right to be an examination
centre can not be an available right to the
institution."

12. The challenge raised therefore is
unfounded and there is no merit in the
petition.

13. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14735 of 2011

Nagina and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus.
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and land
Holding
Act-Section-11-A-Petitioner's
land declared surplus-while they became
Seerdars-thereafter Bhumindhar under
Z.A. & L.R. Act-during consolidation they
have been allotted Chak-and in are
possession-held-pending
disposal
of
objections-interim
protection
from
dispossession given.

Held: Para 7

Relying on the said decisions, it is urged
that even otherwise this Court has
acknowledged that recorded and even
unrecorded tenure holders are entitled
to be heard in the ceiling proceedings
and objections under Section 11 (2) have
to be disposed of before any other
remedy is availed of by a person claiming
rights. Sri R.C. Singh has invited the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 32,
33 and 34 of the decision in the case of
Virendra Deep Singh and others Vs.
District Magistrate, Rampur, and others,
2010 (10) ADJ 646 (DB), to urge that the
objections under Section 11 (2) are
obviously
subsequent
to
the
determination of surplus land which
entitles a tenure holder aggrieved to file
an objection.

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

1. This writ petition has been filed
by 9 tenure holders claiming themselves
to be the recorded tenure holders of the
disputed plots which is alleged to have
been declared as surplus under the
provisions of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling and Land Holdings Act.

2. The contention raised is that the
land in question had been settled in favour
of the petitioners by the erstwhile
Zamindars of the land and by virtue of
such settlement, they have become
Seerdars and again Bhumindhars i.e.
tenure holders in their own right under the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, by operation
of law.

3. The petitioners also contend that
their names were recorded in the revenue
records and for that they have relied upon
the extract of Khatauni between 1366-
1 All Nagina and others V. State of U.P. and others
467
1368 Fasli and 1372-1374 Fasli. They
also contend that the land has been
allegedly declared surplus in the hands of
such persons, who are alleged to be the
tenure holders whereas the correct facts
are that the said land has already been
settled in favour of the petitioners and
cannot be treated to be surplus.

4. A copy of the objection moved
under Section 11 (2) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling and Holdings Act
has been filed as Annexure-3. It is urged
that the petitioners came to know very
recently about the said land having been
made part of the surplus land under the
Ceiling
Act
whereas
during
the
consolidation operations, the petitioners
had been allotted Chaks in respect of the
same land as they were in possession and
ownership of the same.

5. The only prayer made is that a
mandamus be issued to decide the
objections and till the objections are
disposed of, the petitioners be not
dispossessed
by
the
respondents
-
authorities.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited the attention of the Court to
the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.
67690/2006, 29689/2007, 41729/2007,
60643/2007,
59444/2008,
54437/2009
and 2400/2010, which have been quoted
in the body of the petition.

7. Relying on the said decisions, it is
urged that even otherwise this Court has
acknowledged that recorded and even
unrecorded tenure holders are entitled to
be heard in the ceiling proceedings and
objections under Section 11 (2) have to be
disposed of before any other remedy is
availed of by a person claiming rights. Sri
R.C. Singh has invited the attention of the
Court to paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the
decision in the case of Virendra Deep
Singh and others Vs. District Magistrate,
Rampur, and others, 2010 (10) ADJ 646
(DB), to urge that the objections under
Section 11 (2) are obviously subsequent
to the determination of surplus land which
entitles a tenure holder aggrieved to file
an objection. This is in order to protect
the right of such tenure holders, who have
not been given notice under Section 10
(2) of the Act. Some of the petitioners in
the said decision had straight away
approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India without moving any
such
objection
before
the
ceiling
authorities.
Following
the
ratio
as
indicated in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of
the aforesaid decision, the Court held that
a tenure holder is not entitled to straight
away maintain a petition and he has to
approach the authority by filing an
objection before the ceiling authorities.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the
respondent No.3 to decide the objections
of the petitioners under Section 11 (2) of
the Ceiling Act. The petitioners allege
that they are still continuing in possession
over the land as they were recorded
during consolidation operations and the
said land could not have been subjected to
any lease under Section 27 of the Ceiling
Act. In such a situation and in view of the
authorities that have been referred to in
the writ petition, till there is a final
decision on the objection in accordance
with law, and in the event the petitioners
are in actual physical possession of their
land, they shall not be dispossessed till
such objections are decided.
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