GOPAL RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR DIVISION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.5.1994 (Annexure 6) and order dated 30.4.1986 (Annexure 2) passed by the respondents No.l and 2 respectively. Prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute has also been made.

(3.) 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, 1960, for short "the Act", was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an area measuring 1.53 acres out of his holding be not declared as surplus land. In the said notice share of the petitioner was shown as 1/5th. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed objection claiming that his share in the holding is 1/6th and no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record allowed the objection of the petitioner by its judgment and order dated 28.2.1975 holding that no land out of the holding of the petitioner was able to be declared as surplus. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was also stated to have executed sale deeds in respect of portion of land transferring an area measuring 1.6 acres in favour of third persons. The .i foresaid order passed by the Prescribed Authority became final as against the same no appeal was filed by the State of U.P. hereafter, another notice is alleged to have been issued under Sec. 10(2) read with Sec. 29 of the Act against the petitioner on 22.1.1982 on the ground that the land of the petitioner was stated to have become irrigated in the meanwhile. Against the said notice, the petitioner filed an objection again claiming that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30.4.1986 declared an area near iring 4.85 acres as surplus out of the holding of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 13.5.1991 and passed the following order:-