SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The Holdings Act, 1961. In fact, the petitioners pray to quash the order dated 10-5-1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Rath, district Hamipur in Case No. 123 of 1976 (as contained in Annexure No. 6) and the appellate order dated 16-8-89 passed by the Additional Commiss ioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 28 of 1988-89 (as contained in Annexure No. 9 ).

(2.) MR. N. K. Saxena, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the authorities have committed an apparent error of law in rejecting the petitioner's prayer to hold that in view of the adjudication by the consolidation authorities they were holding land lesser in area than one which was taken into account by the ceiling authorities while determining the ceiling area of the petitioners under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land consolidation authorities have held that the petitioners are holding only 111. 33 acres of lands and this fact should have been taken into account by the ceiling authorities in view of the ration laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyapal Singh v. State of U. P, 1979 AWC 217.

(3.) IN the instant case the surplus area of the petitioners was finally determined by the appellate authority on 5-11-77. That order was also affirmed by the dismissal of the writ petitions of the petitioners as also by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition of the Petitioners. Admitt edly, the consolidation proceedings concluded in 1981, i. e. after the determination of the surplus land of the petitioners. Thus the decision in Satyapal's case (supra) if of no help to the petitioners. It is common knowledge that in some consolidation proceedings some area of land belonging to a tenant is taken out from his original holding and allotted to other tenure-holders in their Chaks and vice versa. Thus the exact area of the lands would be at variance. A tenure holder may possess less lands after allotment of chaks by the taking out of certain lands from his original holding even for the purposes of carving out Chak road etc. Thus, this will be of no help to the petitioner in view of the admitted fact that petitioners surplus area with reference to the appointed day was finalised by the appellate authority in November 1977.