BAIJ NATH PATHAK Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) THE facts in brief are these :- THE usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner and he filed objections. THE Prescribed Authority partly allowed the said objection and both the petitioner and the State felt aggrieved with the decision of the Prescribed Authority. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the petition that two appeals were filed before the District Judge of Jaunpur, who was the appellate authority against the order of the Prescribed Authority. THE lower appellate court by its order dated 25th March, 1976 held that the appeal filed by the petitioner stood abated in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 and the District Judge passed the said order holding to that effect. THE petitioner feeling aggrieved with the said order of the lower appellate court, has come up in this petition and in support thereof, I have heard his learned counsel Sri A. N. Bhargava. In opposition, the learned standing counsel has made his submissions.

(3.) FROM the language of Sec. 9 it seems that it has been left to the Prescribed Authority to decide whether any redetermination is called for in accordance with the Principal Act as amended by the U. P. Act No. II of 1975. This is intelligible because in every case a redetermination may not necessarily be called for in the light of the amendments effected by the Act No. II of 1975. Redetermination may be called for only because of the amendments but in many cases the amendments may not be applicable and, therefore, there need not be any re-determination. The use of expression "may" in the section, therefore, is in consonance with the requirements of the situation. Now in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 the expression used is "and the Prescribed Authority is required to re-determine." This expression has to be read in conjunction with the provisions contained in the said Section 9 of the U. P. Amending Act No. II of 1975. The abatement under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the said Ordinance would come about only when the District Judge had something before him to suggest that the Prescribed Authority had decided to proceed to redetermine the surplus land under Section 9 of the U. P. Amending Act II of 1975. There was nothing on the record to show that the Prescribed Authority was proceeding to make any such re-determination under Section 9 of the U. P. Act No. II of 1975 or that he was even contemplating to proceed under the said provision. In the absence of any such material on record, it is not intelligible as to how the District Judge as the appellate authority could predicate that the Prescribed Authority was required to re-determine the surplus land under Section 9 of the U. P. Act II of 1975.