STATE OF U.P. Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.7.1986 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 16.7.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority, under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act'.

(3.) It appears that on enforcement of the Act, a notice under Sec. 10(2) of the Act was served upon the respondent No. 2. On receipt of the said notice, respondent No. 2 filed his objection contending that he was in possession of land measuring 20 bighas 9 biswansis from the time of his father. The plot not No. 244 was wrongly shown as irrigated land; that his father executed a Will on 29.12.1977 by which land was given to his two sons out of whom one was major; that plot No. 167 was wrongly shown in the name of respondent No.2; that in plot No. 184 measuring 8 bighas land, there existed a mango grove, the same has wrongly been shown as irrigated land and that the plot Nos. 236 and 239 were abadi plots, they were wrongly shown as irrigated land. Thus, according to respondent No.2, there was no land in his possession in excess of ceiling limit, to be declared as surplus. In support of their cases, parties produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority I after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on the record, rejected the objection filed by respondent No. 2 and declared an area measuring 7.3 bighas and 11 biswas as surplus land out of his holdings, by judgment and order dated 16.7.1979. Challenging the validity of the said order, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority reversed the ^ findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the case for decision afresh after recording the findings that only an area measuring 2 bighas 1 biswas and 18 biswasis was liable to be declared as surplus in place of 7 bighas 3 biswas 11 biswansis, by judgment and order dated 16.8.1980. Respondent No.2, challenging the validity of the order dated 16.8.1980, filed a writ petition No. 10083 of 1983 in this Court. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.1981 allowed the writ petition and remanded the case to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations and directions made by the High Court in its order.