HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.7340 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No.4298 of 1994) Gurmit Singh & another Both S/o Yoga Singh … Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and others …. Respondents Dated:- 17th August, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. C. Arya, the learned brief holder for the respondents. Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) was initiated against the father of the petitioners. Notice was issued by the respondents declaring 11.12 acres of surplus land. The petitioners’ father filed his objection contending that in view of Section 4-A of the Act, the land was unirrigated and, consequently, there is no surplus land. The prescribed authority, after considering all aspects of the matter, passed an order dated 18th August, 1987 declaring 2.97 acres of land as surplus. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who by order dated 28th March, 1989, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority to give a finding as to whether the land is irrigated or unirrigated under Section 4-A of the Act. Upon remand, the prescribed authority passed an order dated 31st August, 1989 again declaring 2.97 acres of land as surplus land. The petitioners again filed an appeal, which was allowed by order dated 30th November, 1990. The appellate court issued a direction that the prescribed authority is required to give a specific finding on irrigated and unirrigated land as contemplated under Section 4-A of the Act and also consider paragraph A-95 of the U.P. Land Record Manual. Based on the aforesaid direction, the prescribed authority considered the matter denovo and passed an order dated 31st August, 1991 declaring 2.97 acres of land as surplus. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 27th January, 1994. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of specific direction given by the appellate authority in its order dated 30th November, 1990, the prescribed authority failed to give a specific finding with regard to irrigated and unirrigated land and, without any application of mind, has passed the impugned order holding that the land is irrigated and that 2.97 acres of land is surplus. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding arrived at is patently perverse and is based on no evidence nor is based on any application of mind. The learned counsel further contended that a spot inspection was required as contemplated under Section 4-A of the Act and in the present case, no spot inspection was made and, consequently, the impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Bhan Vs. State of U.P. & others 1995 Revenue Decisions 410 and Tej Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others 1999 Vol.90 Revenue Decisions 424, in which it was held that a spot inspection was required and in the present case the prescribed authority had not made the spot inspection and, consequently, the impugned orders stood vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause A-95 of the Land Record Manual 3 is mandatory and non compliance of the aforesaid provision in the Khasra makes it clear that the Khasras relied upon by the respondent would not make it binding. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act, which is extracted hereunder:- “4-A. Determination of irrigated land. – The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras [such years as the State Government may notify in this behalf], the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary, and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion.” A perusal of the aforesaid section indicates that the relevant Khasra which the Prescribed Authority is required to examine is of the year 1378,1379, 1380 Fasli and village map and such other relevant documents and if the Court is of the opinion that the local inspection is required in that case the Prescribed Authority has to make a local inspection. The purpose of local inspection is to find out the exact status of the land, namely, as to whether the land is irrigated or unirrigated. This inspection is not mandatory and an inspection is only required where the Prescribed Authority is of the opinion that the record does not indicate as to whether the land is irrigated or unirrigated and consequently a spot inspection is required to remove any kind of doubt with regard to the status of the land in question. In the present case the Prescribed Authority has considered the relevant Khasras for the period 1378 to 1380 Fasli and found that tubewells were existing in the plots in question which has been circled in red colour as required and as provided in Clause A-95 of the Land Record Manual. These Khasras were not only 4 produced but also were proved in evidence by the Tehsildar and the Lekhpal. The Prescribed Authority further found that two crops were being grown on the land in question and therefore, came to conclusion that the land in question was irrigated land and consequently held that 2.97 acres of land was surplus and accordingly declared 2.97 acres as surplus irrigated land. The appeal of the petitioner also met to the same fate. The said finding is based on findings of fact and on appreciation of evidence which cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction since the Court does not find any perversity in the impugned orders. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.08.2010 LSR