Ganesh Datt Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Ganesh Datt Singh and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 03, 2009

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/488033

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/488033
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rajes Kumar, J.
Decided On: Jul 03, 2009
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 168; [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ ] Determination of compensation Meaning of income of victim Held, The term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question n...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ganesh Datt Singh and ors.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Mahesh Prasad Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra
Reported In: 2010(1)AWC290

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted......awc 1130 and contended that the land which has been excluded in the consolidation proceeding should also be reduced in the ceiling proceeding. he also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of mahesh prasad awasthi v. state of u.p. and ors. 1993 awc 666.4. learned standing counsel relied upon the order of the appellate authority and prescribed authority.5. having heard learned counsel for the parties, i have gone through the impugned order and the order of the prescribed authority.6. in my view both orders cannot be sustained. this court has consistently held that to verify the claim whether the land is irrigated or unirrigated, spot inspection is necessary before arriving to any conclusion. in the present case when the objection was filed by the petitioners claiming that particular land was unirrigated land, in such a situation before treating such land as irrigated land the spot inspection was necessary which could not be made. further in the case of mahesh prasad awasthi v. state of u.p. and ors. (supra) it has been held that reduction in area brought about in a consolidation proceeding should be considered in a ceiling proceeding.7. in this view of the matter, i am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the prescribed authority.8. in the result, writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 12.1.1999 is set aside. the matter is remanded back to the prescribed authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of the law laid down by this court referred hereinabove after giving opportunity of hearing. the petitioners are directed to file certified copy of the order before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks and the prescribed authority is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Rajes Kumar, J.

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur dated 12.1.1999 by which he has rejected Ceiling Appeal No. 79/63/36/M-1996 filed by the petitioners against the order of the prescribed authority dated 30.3.1996 declaring the surplus land.

2. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned standing counsel.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in reply to the notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the petitioner filed objection which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the objection it was stated the land mentioned in List-A was unirrigated land inasmuch as there was no facility of irrigation; the land mentioned in List-B various persons have constructed their houses, therefore, it is a abadi land; the land mentioned in List-C on the spot in bhita, road, banjar, public and khalikan which have been shown as irrigated land; the land mentioned in List-D has been taken for the Harijan residence in the year 1975 on which the Scheduled Caste persons are living and the same did not belong to the petitioners; the lands shown in the Schedule-E have been transferred in favour of various persons; the land mentioned in List-F is grove land. He submitted that despite the aforesaid objection, no spot inspection was made. Therefore, the petitioners have moved application on 10.9.1990 for the spot inspection for the purposes of verification and further an application was moved on 18.7.1992. Despite the aforesaid two applications, no spot inspection was made and the prescribed authority illegally treated unirrigated land as irrigated land and has not excluded those lands which did not belong to the petitioners. He submitted that before the appellate authority it was also submitted that in the consolidation proceeding, the land of the petitioners has been substantially reduced and therefore, such lands which have been excluded in the consolidation proceeding should not be considered for the ceiling purposes. To verify the claim whether the land was irrigated or non-irrigated, spot inspection was necessary, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Chhabilal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994 RD 474, in the case of Ramadhar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994 RD 479 : 1994 (3) AWC 1640, in the case of Swamidin v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 RD 320 : 1996 (2) AWC 843, in the case of Chandra Bhan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1995 RD 410 : 1995 (2) AWC 1130 and contended that the land which has been excluded in the consolidation proceeding should also be reduced in the ceiling proceeding. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Prasad Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 AWC 666.

4. Learned standing counsel relied upon the order of the appellate authority and prescribed authority.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned order and the order of the prescribed authority.

6. In my view both orders cannot be sustained. This Court has consistently held that to verify the claim whether the land is irrigated or unirrigated, spot inspection is necessary before arriving to any conclusion. In the present case when the objection was filed by the petitioners claiming that particular land was unirrigated land, in such a situation before treating such land as irrigated land the spot inspection was necessary which could not be made. Further in the case of Mahesh Prasad Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) it has been held that reduction in area brought about in a consolidation proceeding should be considered in a ceiling proceeding.

7. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the prescribed authority.

8. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.1.1999 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the prescribed authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of the law laid down by this Court referred hereinabove after giving opportunity of hearing. The petitioners are directed to file certified copy of the order before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks and the prescribed authority is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2009 Same Parties Ganesh Datt Singh and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Rajes Kumar, J.

Civil