RAMA SHANKAR Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.3.1985 passed by Prescribed Authority Maudaha, District Hamirpur declaring 166.05 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) acre unirrigated land of tenure-holder surplus and the appellate order dated 12.8.1988 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of tenure-holder but has partly allowed the appeal of State modifying the Prescribed Authority's order and declaring 526.91 acres of unirrigated land as surplus. The petitioners have also challenged the notice dated 5.8.1983 issued under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1960").

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that a notice under Section 10(2) of Act, 1960 was issued to tenure-holder stating that he possess 414.12 acres of land and the entire land being irrigated it was equivalent to 165.65 acres of land (irrigated). The tenure-holder was entitled to retain 27.92 acres hence 137.73 acres of irrigated land was surplus and liable to be declared accordingly. This notice was issued in 1976. Objections were filed but Prescribed Authority rejected the objections and declared the proposed land surplus. The matter was taken in Appeal No. 1003 of 1976. Another Appeal No. 1005 of 1976 was filed by some other person who had also filed objections against the aforesaid notice. Both these appeals were decided vide judgment dated 6.10.1977. The District Judge, Hamirpur, the appellate authority, allowed appeal of tenure-holder Badari Prasad to the extent of reducing the surplus area to 0.91 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The appeal of objectors was also allowed except of one objector, namely, Guman Singh.

(3.) The aforesaid appellate order became final since it was not challenged by State in any higher forum. Thereafter another notice dated 5.3.1983 was issued to Sri Badari Prasad, father of petitioner though in the meantime he had already died. Objections were filed by petitioner and others that the earlier ceiling proceedings having attained finality, no fresh proceedings could have been initiated and secondly that Sri Badari Prasad had already died, notice to his legal heirs and others ought to have been issued separately, etc.