SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The writ petition No.808 (MS) of 1991, writ petition No.807 (MS) of 1991, writ petition No.809 (MS) of 1991 and writ petition No.810 (MS) of 1991 arises out of the common judgment and order dtd. 27/10/1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority/opposite party no.3 by means of which four applications of the petitioner under Sec. 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Ceiling Act) have been dismissed and the order dtd. 30/1/1991, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow/opposite party no.2 in four appeals filed by the petitioner. Therefore, they have been clubbed together and are being decided together by a common judgment and order.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the aforesaid cases as alleged in the writ petitions are that Kunwar Yudhendra Bahadur Singh son of Jayendra Bahadur Singh was the original tenure holder of the land in dispute who acquired the disputed property by means of a partition decree dtd. 7/4/1973 in Civil Suit No.11-B/52 from the court of Civil Judge, Kheri. He executed a registered sale deed of the plot no.68/4.43 acres in favour of the petitioner on 6/12/1983. The application under Sec. 11(2) of the Ceiling Act was filed on the ground that the petitioner is a tenure holder/bhumidhar of the land in dispute situated in village Bhansariya, Pargana-Kheri, Tehsil-Lakhimpur, District-Kheri on the basis of a registered sale deed. The land in dispute has wrongly been included in the holdings of the other co-tenure holders and declared surplus which could not have been done. An objection was filed by the State opposing the application on the ground that the sale deed was executed during ceiling proceedings because the Ceiling proceedings under Sec. 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act were pending since 1981 and decided on 28/2/1986, therefore it was not valid as such the application was liable to be dismissed. Considering the same the application was dismissed by means of the order dtd. 27/10/1989. The petitioners preferred four appeals under Sec. 13 of the Ceiling Act before the opposite party no.2. All the four appeals were dismissed by a common judgment and order dtd. 30/1/1991. Hence the present four writ petitions have been filed.