RAM HARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. These writ petitions based on identical facts and common question of law have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) HEARD Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State and Sri A. P. Singh for respondent No. 5.

(3.) ON 9. 8. 1988, notices under Section 29 of the Act was again issued to Ram Pratap stating that he possessed 50. 74/2 acres in terms of irrigated land and excluding 22 acres of land in pursuance of the decision of the appellate authority dated 24. 8. 1977 which was gifted away to his daughter and daughter's son before the appointed date the ceiling area being only 18. 20 acres he had 10. 72-1/2 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus in his hand. Ram Pratap having died in July, 1981 was substituted by his daughter who filed objection. Prescribed authority vide order dated 29. 11. 1990 confirmed the notice and declared an area 10. 72-1/2 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. The area transferred by Ram Pratap and his daughter in favour of the petitioners in these writ petitions was also included while determining the surplus area. An appeal was filed by the daughter of Ram Pratap against the order dated 29. 11. 1990 which was dismissed on 28. 2. 1990. Writ. petition filed by them challenging the order of the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an objection : under Section 11 (2) of the Act for recalling the order dated 29. 11. 1990 of the prescribed authority on the ground that after having purchased the land their names were mutated over the same and the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing. It was also pleaded in the objection that sale deed was executed in their favour after finalization of the ceiling proceedings against the tenure holder after receiving adequate consideration and as such the provision of Section 5 (8) of the Act was not at all attracted. The prescribed authority vide order dated 21. 6. 2004 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners who went up in appeal. The appellate authority vide order dated 10. 12. 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court.