ABDUL MUID KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.8.1983 whereby an area measuring 7.06 acres of the petitioner's holding situated at Balrampur, district Gonda was declared as surplus by the prescribed authority at Najibabad. district Bijnor and the order dated 27.10.1983, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (for short 'the Act).

(3.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that it was in the year 1976, a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority, Najibabad in which the total holding of the petitioner was shown as 27.09 acres in terms of irrigated land. The ceiling limit of the petitioner was shown at 18.03 acres and 7.09 acres of land was proposed to be declared as surplus out of the holdings of the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice, petitioner filed an application dated 31.5.1983 before the Prescribed Authority challenging the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority to issue the aforesaid notice contending that the land in dispute was situated at Balrampur, district Gonda, therefore, the prescribed authority at Najibabad, district Bijnor had no jurisdiction to issue the said notice. On this application, no orders were passed. The same remained pending, therefore, the petitioner again filed an application on 28.6.1983 before the Prescribed Authority. Najibabad, the respondent No. 3. praying for stay of the proceedings of the case till the decision on the aforesaid application. The prescribed authority, instead of deciding the application filed by the petitioner dated 31.5.1983, proceeded to decide the case ex parte and by judgment and order dated 23.8.1983 declared an area of 7.06 acres land as surplus. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the bindings recorded by the prescribed authority by judgment and order dated 27.10.1983. Hence, the present petition.