SHITAL SINGH DECD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21.12.1982 declaring 37 bighas, 17 biswas and 4 biswansis as surplus land of the petitioner and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal against the said order on 28.4.1983 and the review application against the said order on 27.9.1983.

(2.) A notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the petitioner whereby 37 bighas, 9 biswas and 4 biswansis of land of the petitioner was proposed to be declared as surplus land. The petitioner filed objection against the notice. He sought exclusion of the area which he sold on 26.10.1971 to Smt. Virmati, Smt. Shanti Devi and Mst. Durga in respect of 27 Kachcha Bighas of land. It was further alleged that Plot No. 262 was unirrigated and a portion of Plot No. 104 was grove land. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 23.11.1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 30.7.1975 with a little modification that instead of 37 bighas. 9 biswas and 4 biswansis, it was reduced to 36 bighas, 7 biswas and 4 biswansis. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9690 of 1975. The writ petition was allowed and the case was remanded with the following observation : "In the result, the writ petition is entitled to succeed and the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge are liable to be quashed. As the orders are wholly unsatisfactory and it has not been possible to find out what evidence was led by the petitioner on the first point about the adequacy of consideration for the sale deed and its having been made in good faith, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the two orders should be quashed on this point also although on the face of the record made available in this Court, it cannot be said that the findings suffer from any error of law. Inasmuch as, the orders are being quashed in respect of Other points. It will be open to the petitioner to lead such evidence as may be necessary and legally permissible in support of his objections on all the points."

(3.) On remand of the case by this Court, the matter was again taken up by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority again rejected his objection on 21.12.1982. The petitioner further preferred appeal against the said order before respondent No. 2. The appeal was dismissed on 28.4.1983. The petitioner submitted a review application. The said review application has been rejected vide order dated 27.9.1983. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.