JAYA KANT Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER ALLD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the judgments dated 29-8-1987 and 24-3-1988, Annexures 8 and 6 respectively to the writ petition, passed by the Additional Commissioner, acting as Appellate authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the prescribed authority under the said Act. The other prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent-authorities not to give effect to the impugned orders.

(2.) IN the proceedings taken under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', notification under Section 9 (2) of the Act was issued. The tenure holder petitioner did 0ot file any objection or any statement to the said notice. Thereafter notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued by the prescribed authority, which was served on the petitioner on 7-4-1976. After receipt of the notice the petitioner submitted objection dated 21-4-1976 and stated number of family members - the petitioner, his wife and five children wore stated therein. Out of five children three sons and two daughters were there. The daughters were said to be unmarried. One son was said to be major. It was said that during consolidation operation the area of the hold ing of the petitioner only remained as 54 Bigba 12 Biswa 16 Dhur. It was stated that in Khata No. 2 of village Baradih half share was of Maya Kant. The petitioner had given his choice for the land situated in village Kaprauara, Lohra Deora to be declared as surplus land of the petitioner. It was also said that plot numbers and area shown in the notice were not correct. All the plots in question were situated across river Jamuna.

(3.) BEFORE the appellate court no objection, so far as the declaration itself is concerned was made and had only pressed before it that the surplus land should be taken as far as possible out of the choice, which he had made before the prescribed authority through his application dated 26-6-1976, The appellate authority maintaining the order about surplus land to the extent of 140 Bigha 1 Biswa 7 Dhur partly allowed the appeal and in taking out the surplus land the choice, so far as it relates to village Bawadih disclosed by the appellant should be considered and adjusted accordingly. The judgment dated 17-11-1976 after the amendment of the Act had become final.