NIRANJAN Vs. U P STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR self and FOR R. M. Sahai, J.) :-In proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act a notice was issued in the name of Daya Ram. An objection was taken to the effect that Daya Ram had died beFORe 8th July 1973 and consequently he could not be treated as a tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection and declared certain land to be surplus, treating Daya Ram as the tenure holder. An appeal against this order was also filed. The prescribed authority however, issued a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, this time again in the name of Daya Ram. He declared certain area to be surplus land. Appeals filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority were allowed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 10-12-1976. The order of the Prescribed Authority was quashed and the notice issued to Daya Ram was discharged. It was, however, left open to the prescribed authority to proceed afresh against the sons of Daya Ram. This decision was arrived at on the finding that Daya Ram had died prior to 8-6-73. The order of the District Judge has been allowed to become final.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the order of the learned Judge, the State is interfering with the possession of the petitioners. It cannot possibly be disputed that when a fresh notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act, the earlier proceeding abated and the order of the prescribed authority and that of the learned Judge confirming it ceased to be operative. THEse orders therefore, could not be enforced. Obviously there is no valid order now in existence declaring any land to be surplus area. It is open to the prescribed authority to proceed afresh treating the sons of Daya Ram as tenure holders. THEre has been no determination so far treating the sons of Daya Ram as tenure holders. In the circumstances, the State has no right to take possession over any land which was originally held by Daya Ram.