SEWAK RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief, are these :

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is the father and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the major sons of the petitioner No. 1. Separate notices under S.10(2) of the Act were issued to each of them. THE petitioner No. 1 filed his objections on 26th June, 1976. On the same day the Prescribed Authority fixed the next following day i.e. 27th June, 1976 for recording of evidence. It seems that the Prescribed Authority was in undue haste to decide the case. It will be seen that notice had been issued to the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and they had not filed their objections on 26th June, 1976. THE statutory time within which they could file their objections was not still over and as a matter of fact these petitioners filed their objections on 27th June, 1976. THE petitioner No. 1 examined five witnesses and then he filed an application, a true copy whereof is Annexure-3. It was pointed out in the said application that certified copies of certain documents had already been applied for but the same had not been received by the petitioners and, therefore, some time should be granted for filing the said copies. THE Prescribed Authority granted only one day's time and fixed 28th June, 1976 in the case. On 28th June, 1976 another application for time was given by the petitioner No. 1, a true copy whereof is Annexure-4. THE application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and on the same day the Prescribed Authority disposed of the objections of the petitioners. THEreafter an appeal was filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority and in the appellate court below the petitioner No. 1 moved an application praying that certain certified copies should be allowed to be brought on the record which supported his contention that certain plots were Sir and khud Kasht before the abolition of the zamindari and in the same the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had acquired vested interest by virtue of their births before the abolition of the zamindari and that the said plots subsequently became bhoomidhari plots in the hands of the petitioner No. 1 wherein the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had also equal interest along with their father. THE appellate court below, however, rejected the application by his order which has been reproduced in Para 13 of the writ petition. THEreafter the appellate court below decided the appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner should be given adequate opportunity to obtain fresh copies and file the same, before thc appellate court below. I accordingly direct that after remand the appellate court below shall fix the hearing of the appeal not before 31st December, 1978, and in the meantime the petitioner shall obtain the aforesaid certified copies and file the same before the appellate court below in the appeal which shall now be freshly decided in the light of the aforesaid fresh evidence. It is made clear that so far as other findings recorded by the appellate court below are concerned they shall not be disturbed in any manner whatsoever. The only controversy which shall be considered is in respect of the aforementioned contention that certain plots having been formerly ancestral sir and khud kasht before the abolition of the zamindari, the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have each vested interest in them in specific shares. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.