SMT. KAILASHIYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short the 'Act' and is directed against the orders dated 30.1.1977, 29.8.1985 and 28.5.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 6.2.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority under the said Act. The petitioner, Smt. Kailashiya widow of late Bala Prasad, son of Ram Saran prays for quashing the said orders. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued against Sri Ram Saran who was recorded as tenure holder of the land in dispute calling upon him as to why the land specified in the said notice be not declared as surplus out of his holding. Ram Saran, on receipt of the notice, filed his objection claiming that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus as he was in possession of the land within his ceiling limits. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, declared an area measuring 16 Bighas 18 Biswas 2 Biswansis as surplus land by its order dated 13.8.1976. Ram Saran, challenging the validity of the said order, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority, by means of the said order, directed to exclude four plots from the holding of Ram Saran as the same were found to be Abadi plots. In pursuance of the order of the Appellate Authority, the Prescribed Authority excluded the plots No. 2542, 1346/2, 1412 and 234 measuring 1 Bigha 10 Biswas from the holding of Ram Saran, by his order dated 31.1.1977. The Appellate Authority in its order stated that it was not clear from the record that any appeal was filed against the order dated 31.1.1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority, however, a Writ Petition No. 222 of 1978 was filed by Ram Saran which was also dismissed on 7.12.1979. The said facts have not been contradicted or denied by the petitioner. After dismissal of the writ petition, possession over the land which was declared as surplus was taken by the State Government. Long thereafter, an application under Sections 10(2), 11(1) and 13 -A of the Act was filed by Dhanpat and Maniram sons of Sukhdeo, Girja Devi, Kaluwa, daughter and son of Nathuwa and Smt. Kailashiya, the petitioner, widow of late Bala Prasad contending that they were co -sharers in the holding of Ram Saran. Petitioner claimed right in the land in dispute through her husband, son of Ram Saran. Their claim was not considered by the Prescribed Authority and the aforesaid order was passed wholly arbitrarily and illegally. The said application was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondents.

(2.) PARTIES produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record, dismissed the objection filed by Dhanpat and others by order dated 29.8.1985. Thereafter, two appeals were filed, one by Dhanpat and three others and other by Smt. Kailashiya, the petitioner. The Appellate Authority by order dated 11.12.1985, allowed the appeal, gave the tenure holder permission to exercise option on the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Option was exercised in respect of plots specified in the order and nine other plots were sought to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority after perusing the material on the record and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plots given in option were owned by third persons and also recorded in their names in the revenue papers, therefore, the same could not be declared as surplus and dismissed the application filed by the tenure holder by order dated 20.2.1986. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.