The court finds procedural lapses and lack of evidence in the declaration of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, under the bench of Justice Irshad Ali, quashed the orders dated March 30, 1998, and May 6, 2000, which declared a substantial portion of petitioner Babu Lal's agricultural land as surplus. The court highlighted the failure of the authorities to adhere to statutory provisions and consider relevant evidence, directing a fresh review of the case.
Babu Lal, an agriculturist from Unnao, challenged the orders declaring 13.629 hectares of his land surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The authorities had earlier declared only 5.194 hectares as surplus. The petitioner contended that his holdings were wrongly classified as irrigated without proper evidence and that his family composition was not correctly considered, affecting his statutory entitlement to retain more land.
The court found that the authorities failed to examine the crucial Khasra entries from Fasli years 1378, 1379, and 1380, which were necessary to determine the nature of the land. Furthermore, the authorities ignored the petitioner's claim of having three major sons, which would entitle him to retain additional land.
Justice Ali emphasized that any determination of surplus land must be based on legally admissible revenue records and not on presumptions. The court also noted the misclassification of land due to confusion between plots belonging to a cooperative society and the petitioner's individual holdings.
Additionally, the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's statutory option for choosing which land to declare as surplus, a mandatory requirement under the Ceiling Act. The court also rejected the claim of the subsequent allottee, asserting that rights cannot be derived from an illegal declaration of surplus land.
The High Court has remitted the case back to the Prescribed Authority, directing a thorough review in compliance with the law, considering all relevant evidence, and issuing a reasoned order within six months.
Bottom line:-
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Orders declaring land as surplus must adhere to statutory provisions, consider relevant evidence like Khasra entries, family composition, and statutory entitlement. Findings based on presumptions or incomplete evidence are arbitrary and unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 Sections 4-A, 5, Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Babu Lal v. Prescribed Authority Ceilling Unnao, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2951272
