The Supreme Court has remanded back to the Allahabad High Court a matter raising the question of whether non-agricultural land reserved for cremation grounds, residence etc can be taken into account as part of total land holding.
A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and K V Vishwanathan after hearing detailed submissions deemed it appropriate and permitted the petitioner to raise the above-stated factual-cum-legal pleas before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a review application.
It further directed that the said application be considered by the High Court after notice to the state/prescribed authority and shall be decided expeditiously.
“…we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition on the above-stated ground and rather deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with liberty to the petitioner to raise the above-stated factual-cum-legal plea before the High Court by way of an appropriate application. Let such an application be considered by the High Court and after notice to the State/Prescribed Authority. The petitioner undertakes to file such an application within two weeks,” the bench said in its order.
The Supreme Court directed that till such time, the parties to maintain status quo.
Sumit Gahlot, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Statutory Authorities and the High Court failed to consider that the un-irrigated lands in which Graveyard, Residential Houses/Abadi, Manure pit, Grove, Ramleela ground are constructed and the lands sold before the prescribed dated January 24, 1971, in good faith for consideration are exempted under Section 3 Sub-section (8) & (18), Section 6 Sub-section (1) Clause (b) & (c) of Uttar Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the said lands are exempted and cannot be taken under the Ceiling Act and are not suitable for acquisition under the ceiling Act.
Sumit Gahlot, Advocate, further argued that Statutory Authorities and the High Court failed to consider that the status of the above-mentioned lands being non-agricultural are also recorded in the revenue records and which should not have been counted for determining surplus land.
The petitioner was represented through Sumit Gahlot and T.S. Thakran, advocates of Fidelegal Advocates & Solicitors. (ANI)
