MITHLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

(2.) Petition has been filed challenging order dtd. 1/6/1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Sec. 10(2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) as well as order dtd. 13/1/1995 rejecting appeals No. 272/660 and 273/661 under Sec. 13 of the Act. It has been submitted that earlier in proceedings held under Sec. 10 of the Act, vide order dtd. 26/6/1976, land held on behalf of one Jitendrakant Singh was held to be surplus. The said order was challenged in appeal before the District Judge which was allowed by means of judgment and order dtd. 4/1/1977 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision a fresh whereafter another order was passed on 21/1/1984 which was again challenged before the District Judge concerned under Sec. 13 of the Act. The aforesaid appeal No. 4 was again allowed by means of judgment and order dtd. 4/2/1987 with the finding recorded that the Prescribed Authority had failed to properly determine irrigated and unirrigated portion of the land in dispute and whereafter the impugned order dtd. 1/6/1989 has been passed again rejecting petitioner's contention with regard to irrigated and unirrigated land. Appeal there against has also been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the appellate authority had specifically remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for determination of irrigated and unirrigated land in terms of Sec. 4 -A of the Act to be determined on the basis of relevant Khasra, village map etc. in accordance with judgment of this Court, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have recorded a specific finding with regard to same.