LAWS(ALL)-2002-9-289

GANGA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, HAMIRPUR AND OTHERS

Decided On September 03, 2002
GANGA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
District Judge, Hamirpur And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(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 judgments and orders dated 5.2.1977, 2.4.1984 and 26.5.1484.

(3.) The relevant facts giving, rise to the present petition are that a notice under Sec. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on I.and Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the land specified in the said notice be not declared as surplus out of his holding. On receipt of the said notice the petitioner did not file any objection. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 14.6.1976 declared an area measuring 8.72 acres as surplus out of the petitioner's holding after following the procedure prescribed under the law. The petitioner challenging the validity of the said order, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal of the petitioner was partly allowed and the area of surplus land was reduced from 8.72 acres to 3.78 acres in terms of the irrigated land. The order of Appellate Authority has become final. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for permission to exercise the option in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 12-A of the Act. In the said application it was also stated that instead of taking out 3.78 acres of irrigated land out of his holding as surplus land an area measuring 5.67 acres was earmarked as surplus, which was illegal He also prayed for permission to exercise the option as provided under Sec. 12-A of the Act. The said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 2.4.1984. Challenging the validity of the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before1 the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 26.5.1984. Hence the present petition.