Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P.Through Collector ... vs Balwant Singh And Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23560 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000133 of 1994 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Lakhimpur Kheri Respondent :- Balwant Singh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Prabhat Counsel for Respondent :- Prabhat,Charan Deep Singh Bedi,Mandeep Kumar Mishra,U.K.Srivastava,Umesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Khare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-petitioner and Sri Mandeep Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 03.09.1993 whereby, the appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order dated 15.11.1991 under theUttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, has been allowed.
3. The contention of the Counsel for the State-petitioner is that in an appeal filed by the opposite parties, the appellate authority proceeded to declare the opposite party as tenure holder of the land by virtue of adverse possession, which according to the Counsel for the State is beyond the jurisdiction vested in the authority under the Ceiling Act.
4. The Counsel for the opposite parties argues that in terms of the order, the stand taken by the opposite parties was that they were in occupation of the land in question and no proceedings have been initiated or filed for their ejectment under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and by virtue of the consequences, as specified under Section 210, they became the Bhumidhar/ Sirdar in place of the original tenure holder and thus, no error was committed by the appellate authority in declaring them to be the owner of the property in question.
5. The Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, argues against the said argument that in terms of the mandate of Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, even if for the sake of argument, the contention of the Counsel for the opposite parties is accepted, it is mandatory that the rights be got declared under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; there being no such suit filed for declaration of the rights as are being agitated, no rights of foundation could have been led and in any case, the ceiling authority has no jurisdiction to declare the respondent as tenure holder.
6. Considering the submissions made at the bar, it is further argued that in terms of the provisions contained in U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the rights of the tenure holder of various categories are specified under Sections 209 and 210, which are being extensively argued, are quoted below:
"209. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title.-(1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force; and
(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar, or asami without the consent of such bhumidhar, or asami;
(b) where the land does not form part of the holding of a bhumidhar, or asami without consent of the Gaon Sabha.
shall be liable to ejectment on the suit in cases referred to in Clause (a) above of the bhumidhar, or asami concerned and in cases referred to in Clause (b) above of the Gaon Sabha and shall also be liable to pay damages.
(2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party.
210. Consequence of failure to file suit under Section 209. If a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a bhumidhar or asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession shall -
(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar with transferable rights, become a bhumidhar with a transferable rights of such land and the right, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished;
(b) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, become a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and the right, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished;
(c) where the land forms part of the holding of an asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an asami of the holding from year to year.
[Provided that the consequences mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) shall not ensue in respect of any land held by a bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.]"
7. No doubt, in case, an ejectment of a person, who is in occupation without a title, is not made, the consequences of Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would follow, however, the consequences itself are not established the claim as tenure holder and it is essential that a suit for declaration of the rights be filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
8. Admittedly, no such suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Section 229B is quoted hereinbelow:
"229-B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof.-(1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue the landholder for a declaration of his rights as asami in such holding or part, as the case may be.
(2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the land-holder shall be impleaded as defendant.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha are substituted therein."
9. With regard to the provisions of the Ceiling Act being U.P. Act No.1 of 1961, it is clear that the same was enacted for imposition of ceiling on land holding in Uttar Pradesh and certain other matters connected therewith. The provisions contained in the said Act for declaration of the land in possession of the tenure holder in excess of the ceiling limit subject to following the procedure as prescribed under the said Act. Apart from the declaration of the land as excess being more than the ceiling limit as prescribed, no other power vested in the authority constituted under the said Act. The appellate authority being an authority constituted under the said Act did not have any power to declare the opposite parties as owner of the property in question by virtue of an adverse possession.
10. For the reasons stated above, the appellate order dated 03.09.1993 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025 akverma