MATHURA PRASAD Vs. III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner is the tenure-holder to whom the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued. It seems that he did not contest and gave in choice some land which he had sold by a sale deed which was executed in 1973 in favour of the contesting respondents Nos. 4 to 6. The choice given by the petitioner was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority which is clear from the order dated 15-2-1975, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. It seems that the Prescribed Authority rejected the said choice because the transferees had put in appearance and contended that in view of the sale deed dated 12-1-1973 in their favour, the choice as given by the petitions as the tenure-holder, should not be accepted in view of the provisions contained in Clause (d) of the proviso to Section 12-A of the Act. This contention found favour with the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the choice as given by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal. This appeal was allowed by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 20th Sept., 1975. A true copy of the same is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, it seems that a writ petition was filed in this Court by the said transferees against the said appellate judgment. The writ petition is admitted to have been allowed by this Court but unfortunately, however, no copy of the judgment passed in the earlier writ petition has been annexed to this writ petition. Any way it seems that this Court directed that the appeal should be heard after giving an opportunity to the transferees also. The appeal was, thereafter, heard by the appellate Court and the same was dismissed. However, in view of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, that he should be given an opportunity to give some other land in choice, the appellate Court observed that such an opportunity would be given to the petitioner to give in choice any other land except the plot No. 40 M area 7.98 acres which he had sold in favour of the said transferees.

(3.) A true copy of the said appellate judgment dated 19-8-1981 is Annexure 3 to the petition and a certified copy of the same is also on the record.