SATYA BHAMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the Petitioner filed an objection and opposed the notice. The Prescribed Authority framed the necessary issues, and after the evidence had begun, the Petitioner absented herself. Consequently, on 10-12-1975, the Prescribed Authority considered the objection on merits and passed an order declaring 9.92 acres of irrigated land as surplus with the Petitioner. The Petitioner moved an application for setting aside the order. On 24-3-1975, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner appealed. The learned III Additional District Judge, Basti, held that no appeal lay, as the order fell neither under Section 11(2) nor under Section 12 of the Act and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) By virtue of this section the provisions of Order XVII Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the hearing and disposal of an objection under Section 12 of the Act. Order XVII Rule 2 reads thus:

(3.) The result, therefore, is that this petition fails. It is dismissed accordingly. It shall, however, be open to the Petitioner to pursue her remedy by way of an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, if so advised. There will be no order as to costs.