RAM DEO SINGH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHITLA Prasad Srivastava, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 24-12-82 passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 16-8-83 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that in a proceeding for declara tion of ceiling area certain land was declared as surplus land of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was not served with any notice and the order was passed ex pane declaring 2. 26 acres of land as surplus land. When the petitioner came to know he filed an application to set aside ex pane order but that application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 17-7-82. The petitioner indicated his choice by filing an application on 6-8-82 but the application for choice was rejected by the prescribed Authority on 24-12- 82. On the ground that the proceedings for declaration of surplus land have become final, as such the applica tion was not maintainable. It is stated that the petitioner filed an appeal against this order of the prescribed Authority rejecting his choice, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority that no appeal is maintainable under Section 12 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act only. It is stated by the petitioner that he is in possession of the property which has been declared surplus and the proceedings were ex pane proceedings, as such the petitioner could not get any opportunity to indicate his choice. He filed an application for restora tion but the same was rejected. The petitioner had given his choice before the possession was taken, therefore, the prescribed Authority has illegally rejected the application for choice.

(2.) THE ground of attack of the judg ment of the prescribed Authority is that the choice can be given under Section 12-Aeven after declaration of surplus land under Sec tion 12. Further ground is that as the petitioner was in possession and State has not taken possession, the application for choice was maintainable.

(3.) THE result is that the petition is dis missed, but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .