MALOOK SINGH Vs. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06-0/-1982, passed by First Additional District Judge, Nainital, where by ceiling appeal No. 55 of 1980, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed. The petitioners have further challenged the orders dated 1/-06-1980 and 21-0/-1980, passed by Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 2), whereby rectification application was allowed and the petitioners were refused to be impleaded as party in the proceedings under U. P Im position of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P Act No. 1 of 1961 ).

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.

(3.) IT is not disputed between the parties that Village Mehtaban came under U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 w. e. f. 01-0/-1969 i e. 1376 Fasli. IT is also not dis puted between the parties that proceed ings under U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were initiated against respondent No. 3 Ranbir Lal Kapoor, who owned land in different villages. From the orders under chal lenge, it is also clear that notices were issued under said Act in respect of land including plot No. 23/4 of Village Mehtaban. !t is also not in dispute that total land measuring 174 bigha and 12 biswa, was declared surplus in the proceedings against Ranbir Lal Kapoor (respondent No. 3), which included 38 bigha 3 biswa land of plot No. 23/4. The impugned order dated 1/-06-1980 (copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ peti tion), shows that Prescribed Authority, passed an order dated 1/-06-1980, rec tifying his order dated 26-11-1977 that plot No. 23/4 of Village Mahtaban, shall be read as plot No. 22/4. On this, peti tioners, filed their objections (copy of which is Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) but the same were dismissed by the Pre scribed Authority vide order dated 21-0/-1980, holding that petitioners who are recorded as cultivators of Class 9 in the revenue record, have no right to be impleaded in the proceedings. Said or der is affirmed in the appeal by the appellate authority.