SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders passed under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, wherein the Prescribed Authority by means of order dtd. 26/6/1985 has rejected the objections preferred by the petitioners and the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad has rejected the appeal by means of order dtd. 10/12/1990 affirming the findings of the said Prescribed Authority.

(3.) Though facts in brief necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that once Brij Mohan Singh was a recorded tenure holder with regard to land situated at Village Mau-Atwara, Pargana Jagdishpur, Tehsil Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur. A notice under Sec. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was issued to Brij Mohan Singh, the recorded tenure holder on 30/7/1974, who had died prior to the issuance of notice on 24/4/1974. The said notice was duly received by his sons i.e., Rameshwar Singh, Jagat Pal Singh and Ram Singh, who filed their objections against the notice issued under Sec. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 on 9/9/1974. The Prescribed Authority duly considered the objections raised by the legal heirs of the recorded tenure holder and by means of order dtd. 30/12/1974 declared 4.66 hectares of the land of recorded tenure holder as surplus. An appeal was filed against the order of Prescribed Authority dtd. 30/12/1974, which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for consideration afresh after treating the legal heirs to be the tenure holders. The Prescribed Authority by means of order dtd. 31/12/1976 again decided the case against the petitioners against which the appeal, which was preferred before the District Judge, Sultanpur was dismissed on the ground of limitation.