JANAK DUBEY Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company, Seorahi, district-Deoria culminating in an order dated 14th November, 1967 declaring certain plots owned and in possession of the said company as surplus. A long with the order, the specific plots, which were declared surplus, were detailed in Annexure-1 to the order. This order of 1967 was not subjected to any challenge. At least from the records it is clear that the same is final, so far as the sugar company is concerned. In the list of the surplus land, disclosed in Annexure-1 to the order, plot No. 14, village-Domath, Pargana-Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil-Padrauna, district-Deoria, total area 29.39 acres was mentioned amongst others. The possession of the surplus land was taken and a Gazette notification under Section 14 of the Act, 1960 was published on 15.1.1972. In the Gazette notification, amongst other, plot No. 14, total area 29.39 acres was shown as the surplus land, possession whereof has been taken and had vested in the State Government.

(2.) According to paragraph 8 of the present writ petition, the Petitioners, who are three in number, filed objections under Section 14(3) of the Act, 1960 (as was applicable on the relevant date) against the inclusion of plot No. 14 in the Gazette notification. Admittedly, such objection under Section 14 (3) could be filed only in respect of plots, which are shown as surplus in the Gazette notification issued under Section 14. Therefore, from the own showing of the Petitioners such objection could have been in respect of plot No. 14 only, as Petitioners did not claim any relief qua any other plot noticed in the Gazette notification, nor such objections could have been qua a plot not so mentioned in the Gazette notification. It is repeated that no objections under Section 14 (3) of Act, 1960 can be filed or could be entertained qua a plot not mentioned in the Gazette notification issued under Section 14.

(3.) According to the Petitioner these objections under Section 14 (3) were allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 7.3.1973 and it was held that the land, which was declared surplus could not be so taken as it was the holding of the Petitioners.