LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-261

RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND OTHERS

Decided On October 09, 2002
RAGHUBIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
District Judge, Moradabad and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.2.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and orders dated 11.10.1982 and 28.7.1983 respectively.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Sec. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short "the Act', was issued to Shri Umrao Singh, father of the petitioner, who on receipt of the said notice filed his objection. During the pendency of the case before the Prescribed Authority, Umrao Singh died leaving behind petitioner and others as his heirs and legal representatives, who were substituted in his place. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on the record, by means of order dated 24.6.1976, declared an area measuring 3.31 acres out of the holding of Umrao Singh as surplus. The said order became final as no appeal was filed by the petitioner or other co-tenure holders against it. On the other hand, an application dated 24.1.1978 was filed by respondent No. 4 giving choice under Sec. 12-A of the Act, praying that instead of plot Nos. 30 and 56, which were declared as surplus, surplus land should be taken from plot No. 219. The petitioner filed objection against the said application on 30.8.1982 which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority behind his back by declaring a portion of Plot No. 219 as surplus vide order dated 11.10.1982. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the said order he filed an appeal against the said order before Appellate Authority which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.7.1983 as not maintainable, hence the present petition.