MOHAMMAD MIYAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Mr. A. I. Naqvi, who appeared for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and also perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 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 20.11.1974 passed by the prescribed authority and order dated 30.7.1980 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, acting as appellate authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act' and for an order in the nature of mandamus declaring the whole proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of prescribed authority as illegal.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 14.3.1974. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed an objection claiming that no land out of the holding of the petitioner was liable to be declared as surplus. The parties filed evidence in support of their cases. The prescribed authority after going through the evidence oral and documentary, on the record, dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner by judgment and order dated 20.11.1974. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 29.7.1975 by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 29161 of 1978 challenging the validity of the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority, referred to above. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed and the case was remanded to the appellate authority by judgment and order dated 18.5.1978. On remand, the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in part and declared an area measuring 7 bighas 7 biswas 10 biswansi land out of the holding of the petitioner as surplus and also directed the petitioner to give his choice, if any. Hence, the present petition.