GANESHI DEVI Vs. IIND A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to a notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short "the Act') the petitioner filed objection denying having any surplus land on the ground infer alia that her plots have wrongly been shown as irrigated and she is entitled for benefit of the area reduced during consolidation operation while determining the ceiling area. Objection as well as appeal filed by her was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved she filed Writ Petition No. 2631 of 1977 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.3.1979 and the case was remanded back to the appellate authority to re-determine the twin questions whether the land was irrigated or not in accordance with the provision of Section 4A of the Act and whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the area reduced during consolidation, afresh.

(2.) After remand by this Court, the appellate authority also remanded the matter back to the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority vide order dated 25.10.1982, held that only plot Nos. 150, 326 and 335 were unirrigated while rest of the plots were irrigated. The prescribed authority also held that area of the petitioner which was reduced during consolidation operation is liable to be excluded from her holding while calculating the ceiling limits and accordingly, determined 0.24 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus in the hands of the petitioner. The State of U. P. went up in appeal. The appellate authority vide impugned judgment dated 10.5.1985, allowed the appeal and declared 4.05 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by means of instant writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri Jayanta Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.