RAO MADHO SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE basic controversy in this petition is whether service on the Karinda of the petitioner was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus land under Section 11 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter called the] 'Act'.

(2.) SECTION 9 of the Act contemplates a general notice to tenure-holder holding land in excess of ceiling area for submission of his statement in respect thereof. The manner of notice is by publication in the official Gazette. On failure of filing a statement by the tenure-holder, the Prescribed Authority is required to issue notice under SECTION 10 (2) of the Act after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary to show-cause why the plot or plots proposed in the notice may not be declared as surplus land. Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act require the Prescribed Authority to send a notice calling upon the tenure holder to show-cause alongwith a statement in C. L. H. Form-3. The manner of service of notice is given in Rule 9. It reads as under :-

(3.) THE notice was issued on 12th of March, 1976 and the endorsement of the process server reads as under :-