TIKOLI KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions may be taken up together because common questions are involved and the counsel for the petitioners addressed the same arguments in both of them.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 6137 of 1980, the petitioner is Smt. Tikoli Kunwar. Proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereafter 'the Act') were started against her by the issue of a notice under section 10 (2) along with the statement. It was proposed to declare 15 Bighas 14 biswa and 8 biswansis land of her holding as surplus. Her holding was situated in two villages, namely, Changeli and Chathiya. IN village Changeli the was tenure-holder of plots nos. 7 and 10. Ram Swarup, who is the petitioner before this Court in writ petition No. 6299 of 1980, is another tenure-holder of these plots. Smt. Tikoli Kunwar contested the notice and one of the objections taken by her was that plots nos. 7 and 10 aforesaid and the entire land of her holding in village Chathiya were unirrigated and had been wrongly shown as irrigated in the statement. The Prescribed Authority did not accept this contention and by its order dated 31-12-1974, confirmed the notice. IN appeal the surplus area was modified to some extent but the finding in regard to the character of the aforesaid land was upheld. Thereafter Smt. Tikoli Kunwar came up to this Court by way of a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ No. 8241 of 1976. That petition was decided by this Court on 26-9-1978. The claim of the petitioner that the aforesaid land was unirrigated had not been decided in the manner required by Section 4-A of the Act and hence the case was remanded to the appellate court for decision of this question afresh.

(3.) AS for the case of Ram Swarup tenureholder, of course, the case was remanded by this Court to the Prescribed Authority. In compliance with the directions given by this Court, the Prescribed Authority made a local inspection and gave its report. Surprisingly enough Ram Swarup petitioner filed an objection to that report. In my opinion such an objection was not maintainable. It is another thing that if in the report of a Presiding Officer of a Court some thing had been pointed out on the spot and by some over-sight it had not found mention in the report, the attention can be drawn to it, but that is absolutely different from raising an objection to the observations of the Court.