GUR BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the Petitioners has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 27 -3 -1984 passed by Respondent No. 3 -Prescribed Authority, Ceiling/Sub Divisional Officer, Kashipur, district Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar) as well as the judgment and order dated 23 -5 -1985 passed by the Respondent No. 3 -1 Additional District Judge, Nainital (Annexure Nos. 15 and 17 respectively to the writ petition).

(2.) RELEVANT facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act) along with a copy of C.L.H. Form III as per Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the draft statement may not be accepted as correct and the land be not declared surplus. In response thereof, the Petitioner filed his objection on 12 -8 -1982 alleging that the draft statement is not correct and the Petitioner does not possess any land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Act.

(3.) THE Petitioner also alleged that he exchanged his holding of plot No. 81/438 and 83/5 measuring 9.50 acres of the said village with Sodhi Mailender Singh against his holdings of plot No. 725/4 area 9.50 acres situated in village Sarwar Khera, Tehsil Kashipur with reference to order dated 11 -12 -1979 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Kashipur in Case No. 22/1 of 1978 -79. In the notice that land has also been included in the holdings of the objector. It was also alleged that the land covered by pucca road, Nali, Gaddha etc. should not have been included in the holding of the Petitioner as mentioned in the objection. It was further alleged that there is old grove of mango, Malta, orange and other fruit bearing trees in Khasra No. 725/4 area 9.50 acres situate in village Kawwar Khera regarding which no exemption has been given in the C.L.H. Form 3 to which the objector is entitled. It is also alleged that some other land as mentioned in Clause K, L and M of the memo of the writ petition and detailed in the objection should not have been included in the holdings of the Petitioner.