TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings for determination of surplus land were taken against the opposite party No. 4 in respect of lands owned and possessed by him. In due course, the Prescribed Authority passed an order declaring certain land in his holding to be the surplus land. The Petitioner claims to be a tenure holder of a portion of the land declared surplus. He filed an objection petition under Sec. 14(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. During the pendency of the objection-petition, the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amending) Ordinance was promulgated. Inconsequence of the amending ordinance, the objection-petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal against the original order of the Prescribed Authority along with an application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. By his order dated 23-12-1976, the II Additional District Judge, Nanital, has dismissed the appeal as incompetent on the ground that the Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. Hence this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Sec. 13(1) of the Ceiling Act reads:

(3.) In the present case, the admitted position is that the Prescribed Authority had passed the order under appeal under Sec. 12 of the Act. The Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, he could not maintain the appeal, although the order may have affected his interest. His remedy lay under Sec. 11(2), as held by a Bench of this Court in Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1978 AWC 393 : 1978 All LJ 717 . In that case it was held that, "Sec. 11(2) embraces persons who claim to be tenure holders and who having come to know of the declaration of their land as surplus land of some other person wish to challenge the declaration or notification thereof in the Gazette under Sec. 14. They are all entitled to file an objection under Sec. 11(2) and get an adjudication thereof as required by Sec. 12." In this view, the learned II Additional District Judge was justified in holding that the appeal filed by the Petitioner was incompetent.