IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No.31119 of 1990) Sardar Bahadur Singh & others …………Petitioners Versus Commissioner Kumaon Division Nainital & others …………Respondents Dated: March 22, 2010 Sri ArvindVashistha, Advocate for the petitioner Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3 Sri V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the respondent no.4 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari quashing the order-dated 27.3.1990 passed by the respondent no.2-Prescribed Authority, Nainital and the order dated 24.8.1990 passed by the respondent no.1-Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that a notice u/s 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 {hereinafter to be referred as the Act} was issued to the petitioner-Sardar Bahadur Singh, as to why land 50.04 Bighas in irrigated terms be not declared surplus to his holdings. He filed his objections before the Prescribed Authority. Along with him, Smt. Rashmi Devi and Smt. Rajmati Devi also filed their objections before the Prescribed Authority. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.1990, Prescribed Authority declared 50.04 bighas land in irrigated terms as surplus, while the objections filed by Smt. Rashmi Devi and Smt. Rajmati Devi were rejected. Against that judgment and order dated 27.3.1990, appeals were filed before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital who vide judgment and order dated 24.8.1990 remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for decision on the points mentioned in the judgment and determining the surplus land afresh based on the observations made in the judgment. Feeling Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders, the petitioners have filed the present petition. The learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division has remanded the matter to Prescribed Authority on two points firstly, that the finding of the Prescribed Authority for Smt. Rashmi Devi was not clear and the same appeared to be based on suspicion and surmises and no clear cut reasons were given for treating her possession as benami. Secondly, that the Prescribed Authority had not recorded any finding in terms of Section 4(A) of the Act that in the irrigated area due to private irrigation works on plot no.39, at least two crops were grown in any of the years i.e. 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli. Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only the case of Smt. Reshmi Devi has been remanded by learned Commissioner for reconsideration to the Prescribed Authority while the case of Smt. Rajmata Devi also stands on similar footing and her case also ought to have been sent for reconsideration by the Prescribed Authority. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State also conceded to this point and he also submitted that he has no objection in case the Prescribed Authority is directed to reconsider the entire matter afresh. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; perusal of the entire documents available on record; perusing the judgments and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, I am of the view that order passed by the learned Commissioner for not remanding the case of Smt. Reshmi Devi was not justified and it would be in the interest of justice that the case of Smt. Reshmi Devi is reconsidered by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Prescribed Authority shall also reconsider the case of Smt. Rashmi Devi along with the case of Smt. Rajmata Devi afresh. Needless to state that the rest of the order passed by the learned Commissioner for reconsideration of the case of Smt. Rajmata Devi as well as about the determination of irrigated land in terms of Section 4(A) of the Act as to whether at least two crops were grown in plot No.39 of Village Anandpur Tehsil Kichha in any of the aforesaid years i.e. 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli or not, to be reconsidered by the Prescribed Authority, is hereby made affirmed. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority, U.S. Nagar on 8.4.2010, who shall after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall decide the case expeditiously preferably within three months considering the fact that it is an old matter of the year 1988. Costs easy. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.03.2010 Rajeev Dang