MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER JHANSI MARTDAL JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHITLA Pd. Srivastava, J. This peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 31 -8-1998, passed by the respondent No. 1 in Ceiling Appeal under Section 13 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act only ).

(2.) THE brief facts for the purpose of present wr,it petition as mentioned is ap parent fropi record are that the Smt. Siya Rani, widow of Mangal Singh was the original tenure-holder. She was served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. THE filed objection against the notice. THE Prescribed Authority declared 32. 20 acres of land in irrigated terms surplus land by his order dated 20th June, 1976. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order appeal No. 626 of 1976 was filed by Smt. Siya Rani and others. This appeal was allowed in part by the appellate Court on 14th January, 1978. THE appellate Court held that plot Nos. 524 and 534 are not irrigated but they are unirrigated. THE appeal was dismissed. THE judgment of the Prescribed Authority was modified. Writ petition No. 1091 of 1973 was filed by the tenure holder, Smt. Siya Rani, which was allowed on 14th November,1978. THE High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate Court and directing the ceiling authorities to redeter-mine the surplus area and remanded the case to the ceiling authorities. A special leave petition was filed against the order of the High Court in the Supreme Court. THE Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, meaning thereby that the order of the remand passed by the High Court with a direction to the appellate Court to decide the controversy in the light of the law laid down in Jasvant Singh v. State of U. P, 1978, AWC page 579, the appellate Court heard the matter again and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 31st August, 1988. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the property transferred to the minor sons of gift deed should not have been clubbed with the holding of Smt. Siya Rani and secondly that the petitioners being the step-sons were not the members of the family of Smt. Siya Rani, who was their step-mother, therefore, also the land of the petitioners could not have been clubbed with the hold ing of Smt. Siya Rani, inherited from her husband on the basis of the will. That the appellate Court has illegally rejected the application as the minor has a right to elect when he becomes major to discharge his guardian and contest himself. His further contention is that when in the consolida tion proceedings an order was passed mutating the name of the petitioners as tenure holders in place of Mangal Singh then that land should not have been taken into consideration, while determining the ceiling area of Smt. Siya Rani and further that as the petitioners were not the real sons of Smt. Siya Rani, rather they were step-sons, therefore, their land should not have been clubbed with Smt. Siya Rani. His contention is that the judgment of the consolidation authorities will operate as resjudicata against Smt. Siya Rani.