DAL CHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution by Dal Chand, directed against the order of the District Judge Mathura, dismissing his appeal against the refusal by the prescribed authority, under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act No. I of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to set aside the ex parte order dated the 30th November 1961, Under Section 11(1) of the Act.

(2.) A notice under Section 10 of the Act accompanied by a statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) was is used to the Petitioner at his address in village Aring, District Mathura, calling upon him to show cause within the period specified in the notice why the statement signed be not taken as correct. This notice admittedly was served upon Sri Brijendra Singh one of the sons of the landlord on 19 -10 -1961. Another supplementary notice was served on his other son Gyanendra Swarup on 5 -11 -1961. According to the affidavit of the Petitioner, he was not informed of the said notice by his sons from whom he had separated and had been living in Mathura since the last ten years. In any event, it was claimed that he was lying ill in Mathura and had not visited his village Aring between the 30th September, 1961 and the 2nd April 1962. The Petitioner claims that he only came to know that the case had been decided ex parte against him on arriving in the village. Thereupon, he moved an application on the 4th of April, 1962 accompanied by an affidavit asking for the ex parte order to be set aside on the ground of want of service of the notice and lack of knowledge because of his absence from the village due to illness and medical treatment from the 30th September, 1961 to the 2nd April, 1962. The prescribed Authority refused to set aside the ex parte order on the ground that no medical certificate was filed by him and that in any event the objection was time barred. It was held that the notices were served on the sons who were living jointly with him and thus service was complete and proper. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal to the District Judge who was of the view that the insurmountable hurdle in the way of the appeal was in the form of the bar of limitation as prescribed in Section 11(2) of the Act. According to him it was obligatory to file an objection within 30 days from the date of the order under Sub -section (1) and these words had to be construed literally regardless of whether the Petitioner in fact had knowledge of the order under Section 11(1) or not. Accordingly the appeal was rejected and the order of the prescribed Authority holding the application to be time barred was upheld. Hence this petition.