Land cannot be classified as irrigated under Section 4-A without supporting Khasra evidence.

The petitioner, an agriculturist of Village Pyarepur, Unnao, was a member of a registered cooperative farming society and had contributed approximately 26 Bighas, 18 Biswas and 15 Biswansis to it; he claimed no exclusive right over the remaining society land.

In 1992, the Prescribed Authority issued a ceiling notice alleging that he held 16.494 hectares of irrigated land and proposing 5.194 hectares as surplus.

The petitioner objected that the society’s land had been wrongly included in his individual holding, that portions of his land were unirrigated, and that he had three major sons and was entitled to additional ceiling area under Section 5(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

The initial order dated 27 January 1996 was set aside on appeal and the matter was remanded.

After remand, the Prescribed Authority excluded most of the society’s land but again treated the petitioner’s entire holding as irrigated and, by order dated 30 March 1998, declared 13.629 hectares surplus.

The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 6 May 2000 without properly examining the relevant Khasra entries, the petitioner’s family composition, or his statutory entitlement.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the authorities lawfully classified the petitioner’s land as irrigated under Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, without examining the Khasra entries for Fasli years 1378, 1379 and 1380 and other supporting evidence.

2. Whether the authorities erred in treating land belonging to the cooperative farming society, beyond the petitioner’s contributed share, as the petitioner’s individual holding.

3. Whether the authorities were required to consider the petitioner’s claim of having three sons and seven family members for determining his permissible ceiling area under Section 5(3) of the Act.

4. Whether the authorities failed to consider the petitioner’s statutory option regarding the land to be retained or declared surplus.

5. Whether the subsequent allottee could resist the petitioner’s challenge to the declaration of surplus land or claim a better title than the State.

The Court applied Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which requires the classification of land as irrigated to be determined on the basis of relevant Khasra entries and evidence concerning irrigation facilities and the land’s capacity to produce two crops in the relevant years.

Section 5(3) was applied to recognise the statutory benefit available on account of the tenure-holder’s family composition and eligible sons.

The authorities were also required to consider the tenure-holder’s statutory choice regarding the land to be retained or declared surplus.

The Court relied on Ram Bhajan v. Chief Revenue Officer, 2001 (92) R.D. 538, and Sachin Kumar Verma v. State of U.P., for the principle that a subsequent allottee derives no better title than the State and cannot resist correction of an illegal surplus declaration or restoration of the tenure-holder’s lawful rights.

The Court held that the finding that the petitioner’s entire holding was irrigated was unsupported by legally reliable evidence.

The respondents could not produce the relevant Khasra entries for Fasli years 1378, 1379 and 1380 showing the cultivation of wheat, the existence of irrigation facilities, or the consistent production of two crops.

The authorities also failed to consider entries recording substantial areas as Parti Jadid, absence of irrigation sources, and intermittent cultivation, and wrongly confused Plot No. 140 with Khata No. 140 by relying on tube-wells belonging to the cooperative society.

The Court further found that the authorities ignored the Lekhpal’s statement recording that the petitioner had three sons and two daughters, and failed to determine his entitlement to additional ceiling area under Section 5(3).

They also disregarded the petitioner’s statutory option and did not adequately justify the increase of surplus land from 5.194 hectares in the earlier order to 13.629 hectares after remand.

Since the petitioner had contributed only his share to the registered cooperative society, the authorities had no basis to treat the society’s entire land as his individual holding.

Finally, any subsequent allottee could not acquire a better title than the State, particularly where the underlying surplus declaration was legally unsustainable.

The writ petition was allowed; the orders dated 30 March 1998 and 6 May 2000 were quashed.

The matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for fresh determination after examining the relevant Khasra entries, revenue records, the Lekhpal’s statement, the petitioner’s Section 5 claim, and his option regarding retention of land, with a reasoned order to be passed after hearing all concerned parties, preferably within six months.

No order as to costs was made.