PRAKASH SINGH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court noticing some difference in opinions in two Division bench cares of this Court made a reference for the constitution of a Full Bench for consideration of the following two questions:

(2.) WHAT is the true meaning and scope of Sub -section (2) of Section 31 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act (U.P. Act No. XX of 1976) with reference to the present case?

(3.) MEANWHILE , the Prescribed authority issued a fresh notice on 16 -6 -76 under Section 10(2) of the Act to the Petitioner Prakash Singh and ten other persons. The notice indicated that these ten persons were ostensible owners on behalf of the real tenure holder Prakash Singh. Objections filed by the tenant and these ten persons were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30th March, 1977. He held while deciding issue No. 1 relating to Karamjit Singh, Baljit Singh, Harender Singh and Smt. Pushpender Kaur that as their case was pending in a writ petition it did not require consideration at that stage. However, in regard to the remaining six persons the Prescribed Authority held in his finding on issue No. 2 that no part of the land in the heads of these persons was liable to be declared surplus. The Prescribed Authority also observed in his order that the necessary action in connection with the land of Karamjit Singh, Baljit Singh, Harender Singh and Smt. Pushpender Kaur who had acquired land after 24th January, 1971, shall be taken after the decision of the writ petition by this High Court. Although the number of the writ petition was not mentioned but in all probability it meant Writ Petition No. 5563 of 1975 which was pending even on 30 -3 -1977.