CHHOTEY LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.4.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Sandila, District Hardoi and the order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Hardoi rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the ceiling land claimed by him ignoring the direction issued in the appeal which was decided on 13.2.1979.

(3.) A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short "the Act") was issued to the petitioner for declaring certain portion of his land as surplus. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice challenging therein the ceiling statement and prayed for discharge of the notice. The Prescribed Authority after considering reply of the petitioner and the evidence on record proceeded to pass an order dated 27.11.1974 declaring substantial part of the petitioner's holding as surplus against which an appeal was filed before the appellate court. The appellate court remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 13.2.1979. The Prescribed Authority after the remand of the matter framed certain issues. The petitioner challenged the notice and one of the grounds was in respect of share of Pratap Singh and Anil Kumar Singh, who were sons of the petitioner to the extent of 1/3 each in the Bhumidhari Land shown in Form -3 as it belonged to the ancestors of the petitioner. Apart from it, certain other grounds were also pressed. The petitioner in respect of his claim filed CH Forms 41 and 45 of the village, copy of the Khasra and Khatauni and examined himself and one Iddu. On behalf of the State no documentary or oral evidence was led. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26.12.1975 declared an area of 25 Bigha 9 Biswa 7 Biswansi as surplus against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hardoi which came up before the Civil Judge, Hardoi for hearing, who vide order dated 21.8.1976 partly allowed the appeal holding that share of the petitioner was half and not 1/3 as claimed by him. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the decision of the appellate court filed writ petition before this Court numbering 3537 of 1976. In the said writ petition, the ground was raised that the land in question was Sir and Khudkasht of Zamindar in pre -abolition period and after the abolition of the Zamindari, Sir and Khudkasht land was converted into Bumidhari land and as such, it was in the nature of ancestral property. Writ Petition No.3537 of 1976 was allowed vide order dated 9.11.1978 and the order dated 21.8.1976 was quashed and the case was sent back to the lower appellate court for deciding the case in the light of the observation made in the order. This Court observed that Civil Judge had committed an error in allocation of shares and further observed that the Civil Judge had not applied his mind and as such, the order could not be sustained.