KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 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 26.8.1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short "the Act", and declaring 72 Bighas 7 Biswas 10 Biswansis land as surplus and the order dated 17.11.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief, are that it was in the year 1976 a notice under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the land specified in the said notice be not declared as surplus out of his holdings. The petitioner after receipt of the said notice filed his objection contending that no land out of the holding of the petitioner was liable to the declared as surplus. It is not necessary to give the details of the objections. It Would suffice to say that, in brief, it was contended that he was entitled to 2 hectares additional land for Km. Chandra Kala (major daughter of the petitioner) and his family consisted of 7 members, that there was a Will (un-registered) executed in favour of Pradeep Kumar by Gauri Shanker, father of the petitioner, on 24.1.1973, therefore, the land covered by the said Will was liable to be excluded from his holding of the petitioner. Thus, no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. The objection filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the State. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases and the Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on record decided the case by his judgment and order dated 24.8.1976 declaring 72 bighas 7 biswas 10 biswansis land as surplus. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority as in the meanwhile father of the petitioner had died. The appeal filed by petitioner was allowed and the case remanded back to the Prescribed Authority by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 8.2.1977. The Prescribed Authority after remand of the case again declared an area measuring 71 bighas 12 biswas 9 biswansis land out of the holding of the petitioner as surplus. It was on 24.12.1981 that the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order dated 22.10.1981 as, according to him, the said order was passed ex-parte without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order dated 22.10.1981 was set aside. Thereafter, it was on 8.3.1982 that the petitioner filed an application for amendment of his objection. In brief, by means of the amendment the petitioner wanted to contend that in the meanwhile the village came under consolidation operations and during consolidation proceedings the area of his holdings was reduced by 37 bighas 15 biswas 10 biswansis, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of the said reduction and the area measuring 37 bighas 15 biswas 10 biswansis, was liable to be reduced from his holding before determining the' surplus land. The amendment application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 26.8.1992. Thereafter the matter was heard by the Prescribed Authority and after hearing the parties the case was again decided on 26.8.1982. The Prescribed Authority gave the benefit of 6.28 acres land only which was less than 37 bighas 15 biswas 10 biswansis. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 26.8.1982 again filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority three points were raised by the petitioner, which were rejected and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by judgment and order dated 17.11.1984. Hence, the present petition.