STATE OF U P Vs. MAHABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi and Sri S.C. Dwivedi Advocates appearing on behalf of contesting Respondents.

(2.) The order impugned in the instant writ petition is dated 28.11.1990, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Facts of the case in brief are that ceiling proceedings commenced and an area of 26-4-0 was declared surplus on 6.1.1975. These proceedings later on abated and thereafter fresh proceedings started on 31.8.1976. In these proceedings an area of 39-12-5 was declared surplus. The Prescribed Authority rejected objection of the tenure holders. Appeal filed against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority also stood dismissed on 3.12.1976. Thereafter consolidation proceedings commenced and village was notified on 5.2.1981. During consolidation proceedings, the land of Respondents was reduced considerably. Petitioner No. 1 Mahabir (since deceased) moved an application before the Prescribed Authority that while determining surplus area, the Prescribed Authority has considered an area which in fact did not belong to them and during consolidation proceedings after determining his share, area has been reduced and, therefore, the order of the Prescribed Authority be reconsidered. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. This order was challenged in an appeal.

(3.) Case of Mahabir was that 20 bighas of land has been reduced during consolidation operation and if this area is taken out then there is no surplus land and previous orders are liable to be set at naught. This Court has held in several decisions that the Prescribed Authority cannot shut its eyes or ignore the decision given during proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act while determining ceiling area. The 1st Additional District Judge while allowing the appeal placed reliance on two decisions of this Court Jhandu v. State of U.P., 1977 AWC 318 and a decision of Division Bench in the case of Satya Pal Singh v. State of U.P.,1979 AWC 217. On the basis of these decisions, the appeal was allowed and order of the Prescribed Authority was set at naught. The case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for afresh decision vide judgment and order dated 10.2.1982. Copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.