CHAKRA MANOHER Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Anapoorna Agnihotri, Advocate holding brief of Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 26/3/1996, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bahraich in Case No. 45/106, the order dtd. 10/11/2006, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Devi Patan Division, Gonda in Case No. 238/2 and the order dtd. 8/3/1990, passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No. 778/3/48/15, on the ground that in ceiling proceedings pending before the Prescribed Authority, Bahraich no notice was issued to the petitioners and for want of which the proceedings and the order passed thereunder are vitiated in law.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that notice under Sec. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1960") was issued to one Sampata Devi with regard to land holding measuring 19.152 acres situated in Village - Gurchahi, Pargana - Ikauna, District - Shrawasti. Sampata Devi had filed objections to the said notice but did not contest the objections seriously. After Sampata Devi's land dwelled upon Smt. Bindra Devi and petitioners purchased the said land through registered sale deed dtd. 1/9/1970 from Bindra Devi and the land was also recorded in the name of petitioners subsequent to the registration of sale deed. During the course of pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, Smt. Bindra Dei died and the petitioners possession over the land in question has been admitted prior to the cut of date fixed under Sec. 5 of the Act, 1960, under Explanation II in the light of the sale deed executed in 1970. The land in question stood excluded from the proceedings under Sec. 5 of the Act, 1960 on account of which for want of notice issued to the petitioners, the order is nullity. When the order came to the knowledge of the petitioners, they preferred an application under Sec. 11(2) of the Act, 1960, the same has been rejected. The order passed by the Prescribed Aurhority has been affirmed in the appeal.