IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

Writ (C) No. 21402 of 2019

Mahant Shitala Prasad … Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others … Opp. parties

INDEX
S.No. D E S C R I P T I O N Pages

1. C.M. Application for taking counter (Separate)

affidavit on record
2. Counter Affidavit

3. Annexure No. 1: A copy of application

dated 03.05.2000.
4. Annexure No. 2: The copy of order dated
26.02.1997, CLH-6 dated 27.10.1997 and
application dated 24.06.1997.
5. Annexure No. 3: The copy of the order
dated 31.07.2003.
6. Annexure No. 4: The copy of the order
dated 09.12.2003 passed by Prescribed
Authority (Ceiling).
7. Annexure No. 5: The copy of the order
dated 28.02.2005 passed by appellate
court.
8. Annexure No. 6, 7 & 8: A copy of
application dated 05.12.2012 and
application dated 08.08.2019 as well as
order dated 21.11.2019
9. Affidavit along with ID proof

10. Vakalatnama

State Law Officer

LUCKNOW Counsel for the Applicant/
DATED: Respondent
Advocate on Roll No. B/M
 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

C.M. Application No. of 2022

In Re:
Writ (C) No. 21402 of 2019

Mahant Shitala Prasad Das … Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others … Opp. parties

APPLICATION FOR TAKING COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON

RECORD

The humble applicant begs to submit here as under:-

That in the above-mentioned case, the Hon’ble Court

vide order dated 08.09.2022 has directed the opposite

parties to file counter affidavit. In compliance thereof the

counter affidavit is being filed along with this application.

WHREEFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to

allow taking the counter affidavit on record in the interest

of justice.

State Law Officer

LUCKNOW Counsel for the Applicant/
DATED: Respondent
Advocate on Roll No. B/M
 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

Writ (C) No. 21402 of 2019

Mahant Shitla Prasad Das … Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others … Opp. parties

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

I, ………………………………… aged

about ……. years, Son of

………………………………..

R/o- ……………………………………………..

presently posted as ………………………..

……………………………………..,Religion-

………., Education- ………., the deponent do

hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as

under:-

1- That the deponent is presently posted as ................,

................................................. the deponent is the

authorized signatory on behalf of the Opp. Parties 1

to 3 in the instant Petition and as such he is fully

conversant with the facts of the case stated

hereinafter.
2- That the petitioner has filed the present writ petition

for granting the following prayers: -

3- That the deponent has read the contents of the writ

petition filed by the petitioner and supporting

annexure filed in support thereof and is filing para

wise reply of the same as under;

4- That the averments made in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 and

5 of the writ petition need no reply.

5- That the averments made in para 6 of the writ

petition relates to the proceeding under Section 10(2)

of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act

(hereinafter mentioned as ‘Act’) against the Baba

Amar Das, hence needs no reply.

6- That the averments made in para 7 of the writ

petition relates to the proceedings against under

Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land

Holdings Act and thereafter final order was passed

after hearing the parties on 25.01.1975 and

thereafter area of 3-16-10 was declared as surplus

land.

7- That the averments made in para 8 of the writ

petition is denied and it is hereby clarified that in

ceiling proceeding, the objection raised by Baba Amar

Das was fully considered and thereafter the order

 was passed with the liberty given to him for opting

surplus land.

8- That the averments made in para 9 of the writ

petition need no reply.

9- That the averments made in para 10 of the writ

petition is not admitted as stated and it is hereby

clarified that the application dated 03.05.2000 was

filed after rejecting the order dated 27.02.1976 on the

basis that the order dated 27.02.1976, the initial

land No. 212 belongs to religious institution and that

is why the order dated 27.02.1976 may be rejected.

The copy of application dated 03.05.2000 is being

annexed herewith as Annexure No. CA-1 to the

counter affidavit.

10- That the averments made in para 11 of the writ

petition is not accepted and in reply thereto, it is

stated that Smt. Manjul Chaturvedi wife of Rajendra

Prasad Chaturvedi and Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi wife

of Tara Chandra Chaturvedi has moved application

under section 11 (2) of the Act on 24.06.1997 against

the order dated 27/27.02.1997 and in that

application it is stated that order dated 27.02.1997

in relation to the case No. 39/183 regarding Khata

No. 145 is against them and that is why the initial

order may be set aside and as per order dated

 27.02.1976 new Khata No. 307 may be separated

from ceiling land and same may be merged in the

Khata of O.P.No. 1 and Khata No. 145 and the name

of O.P.No. 1 may be kept as it is in regard to Khata

No. 145. The copy of order dated 26.02.1997, CLH-6

dated 27.10.1997 and application dated 24.06.1997

are being annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the counter

affidavit.

11- That the averments made in para 12 of the writ

petition is denied and it is hereby stated that Shitala

Prasad and opposite parties i.e. Ashok Kumar and

Girish Kumar have moved a settlement dated

22.11.2001. Thereafter, different dates were fixed in

the case in between 29.11.2001 to 31.07.2003 and

not even a single time the petitioner has made any

objection that he has not signed the settlement deed.

In the above circumstances, it is clearly evident that

the settlement deed was properly signed and

presented by the petitioner and thereafter the case

was finally disposed of on 31.07.2003 by passing

final order. The copy of the order dated 31.07.2003

is being annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this counter

affidavit.

12- That the averments made in para 13 of the writ

petition need no reply.

13- That the averments made in para 14 of the writ

petition need no comment.

14- That the averments made in para 15 of the writ

petition is not denied and the averments made in

para 12 of this counter affidavit is reiterated.

15- That the averments made in para 16 of the writ

petition is denied and it is hereby stated that

O.P.No.3 Ashok Kumar has moved application on

24.09.2003 for correction/amendment in the order

dated 31.07.2003 stating therein that the surplus

land in land No. 408 MI having an areas of 0.825 h.

and land No. 428 MI having area of 0.007 h. belongs

to Girish Kumar, Ashok Kumar/Shitala Prasad chela

Amar Das, however, land No. 408 having area of

0.825 h. and land No. 428 MI having area of 0.007 h.

that Shitla Prasad along with Ashok Kumar, Girish

Kumar chela Amar Das may be mentioned as joint

holder.

16- That the averments made in para 17 of the writ

petition is denied and in reply thereto it is stated that

on the application moved by Ashok Kumar dated

24.09.2003, a report was sought from the then Naib

Tehsildar. On 30.10.2003, report was submitted by

Naib Tehsildar and on that report legal opinion was

sought from the D.G.C. (Revenue). The D.G.C.

 (Revenue) has consented the report submitted by the

Naib Tehsildar. In these circumstances, the order

dated 31.03.2003 passed by Prescribed Authority

(Ceiling) was modified on 09.12.2003. The copy of the

order dated 09.12.2003 passed by Prescribed

Authority (Ceiling) is being annexed as Annexure No.

4 to this counter affidavit.

17- That the averments made in para 18 of the writ

petition is not accepted as stated and it is hereby

stated that the Prescribed Authority has passed order

dated 09.12.2003 only after going through the report

submitted by the Naib Tehsildar dated 03.10.2003

and after opinion given by the DG (C) Revenue.

18- That the averments made in para 19 of the writ

petition is not true as stated and in reply thereof, it is

stated that the petitioner has moved appeal under

section 13 of the Act which was numbered as 28, an

application under section 10 (2), 11 (2) of the Act

which was registered as case No. 67/100/118 and

Case No. 36/50/59/59/70/82/82 has moved

application before the Assistant Commissioner,

Faizabad Division, Faizabad presently Ayodhya

Division, Mahant Prasad, Shitla Prasad Das Vs.

Girish Kumar and others and in that appeal,

appellate court after hearing the parties at length has

passed a detailed order on 28.02.2005 rejecting

 having no force. The copy of the order dated

28.02.2005 passed by appellate court is being

annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the counter affidavit.

19- That the averments made in para 20 of the writ

petition need no reply.

20- That the averments made in para 21 of the writ

petition is not accepted, however, it is hereby stated

that the appellate court passed the order on

28.02.2005 after doing all the aspect on record after

hearing all the parties. It is pertinent to state that

the order dated 09.12.2003; a recall application was

filed on 05.02.2012 before the Prescribed Authority

(Ceiling) which was presented on 07.08.2014 and

thereafter on 08.08.2019 the petitioner has moved an

application stating therein that he wants to not press

the application/ case and therefore, and the case be

dismissed and the case was finally dismissed on as

not pressed on 21.11.2019. A copy of application

dated 05.12.2012 and application dated 08.08.2019

as well as order dated 21.11.2019 is being filed

herewith as Annexure No. 6, 7 and 8 (Coll.) to this

counter affidavit.

21- That the averments made in para 22 of the writ

petition is not admitted and in reply thereto it is

submitted that the application dated 05.10.2012

 against the order dated 09.12.2003 was presented on

07.08.2014 and thereafter the petitioner has himself

moved an application on 08.08.2019 by which the

petitioner has requested for dismissing the entire

proceedings and only thereafter, the order dated

21.11.2019 was passed.

22- That the averments made in para 23 of the writ

petition is partly denied to the extent that the order

of ceiling for declaring the surplus land was passed

as per law; therefore, need no reply.

23- That the averments made in para 24 and 25 of the

writ petition need no reply.

24- That the averments made in para 26 of the writ

petition is denied and in reply thereto, it is hereby

stated that the order dated 09.12.2003 passed by the

Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) as well as the order

dated 28.02.2005 was passed as per law and by

means of application dated 08.08.2019, the petitioner

has himself moved an application for not pressing his

earlier application dated 07.08.2014 for recall of

order dated 09.12.2003 and in continuation the

order dated 21.11.2019 was passed by which all the

proceedings were set aside.

 25- That in these circumstances, all the grounds made in

the writ petition bearing no force and, in these

circumstances, the prayer sought by the petitioner is

liable to be rejected; therefore, the writ petition may

be dismissed as not maintainable, in the interest of

justice.

LUCKNOW:
DATED: DEPONENT
VERIFIC ATION
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the
contents of paras of this affidavit
are true to my knowledge and the contents of paras
are true to my knowledge derived from records and
those of paras are based on legal advice.
Nothing material has been concealed and no part of it is
false. So help me God.

LUCKNOW:
DATED: DEPONENT.
I identify the above-named deponent, who has signed
before me on the basis of records produced by him before
me.

Clerk of C.S.C. Office.

Solemnly affirmed before me on __________
at ___________ a.m./p.m.
by Sri _______________________
The deponent who is identified by
Sri,_____________________ s/o
r/o _____________________________
________________________________ ,CSC Office,
High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that

he has understood the contents of this affidavit, which have
been read out and explained by me.