BADRI NARAYAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petition and Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Chief Standing Counsel .

(2.) The controversy in the connected writ petitions relate to the proceedings initiated against Badri Narayan son of Durga Prasad, petitioner in writ petition no. 45110 of 1999 under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act).The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act dated 19.4.1974. Petitioner filed objection and case no. 114 (State Vs. Badri Narayan) was proceeded against him. The Prescribed Authority by judgement and order dated 4.8.1975 declared the land of the petitioner as surplus land to the extent of an area of 9.80 acres in the form of irrigated land. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.9.1975 and the case was remanded to the then Prescribed Authority. In the meantime, one Mathura Prasad had intervened in the matter. His request was turned down, the matter travelled upto this court and was remanded to the Prescribed Authority vide judgement and order dated 24.4.1978 passed by this court for deciding the same afresh after considering the contention of the aforesaid intervener, Mathura Prasad. After considering the claim of Mathura Prasad, the Prescribed Authority by judgement and order dated 27.7.1981 declared 7.74 acres of the land of the petitioner as surplus.

(3.) By another notice dated 27.4.1989, the petitioner was called upon to submit the details regarding his holdings. It was mentioned in the notice dated 27.4.1989 that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9(2) of the Act, the petitioner did not disclose the complete details of the land belonging to him and his family members and the detail given by the petitioner tenure holder was found to be incorrect. The Prescribed Authority prepared the statement containing particulars, thereafter, issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act calling upon the tenure holder to show cause within a period of 15 days as to why the said statement be not taken as correct.