RAM RAJA Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JHANSI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed for admission. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with provisions of Rules of the Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that U.P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings Act was amended by Act No. XXIII of 1973. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the land disclosed in the notice be not treated as surplus land. A case was registered, being case no. 60 of 1973-74. In the aforesaid case, the Prescribed Authority declared 6.46 acres of land as surplus by his order dated 30-9-1974. Petitioner filed an appeal, which too was dismissed, as a result whereof, the surplus land of 6-46 acres was taken over by the State.

(3.) BE that as it may although the amendment of 1975 has given power for reopening of earlier proceedings, but subsequent officer having concurrent jurisdiction has no authority to take different view and re open the proceeding. This controversy has been set at rest in Satyanarayan Banerjee v. Charge Officer and A.S.O. Bolepur, AIR 1975 Cal 43 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that the subsequent officer having concurrent jurisdiction has no authority to take different view and reopen the proceedings.