HUKUM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-1-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was held to be not maintainable by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 26-11-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the petition, Now the petitioner has come in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing counsel has made his submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court was wrong in thinking that the land, which had been declared as surplus in the earlier ceiling proceedings, could not be reconsidered in the subsequent ceiling proceedings from which this petition has arisen. It seems that in the earlier ceiling proceedings, some land was declared as surplus. Thereafter, in view of the amendment of the law, another notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued but in the subse quent notice it was clearly given out that an additional land was to be declar ed as surplus over and above that land which had already been declared surplus in the earlier ceiling proceedings. The prescribed Authority in his order observed that so far as the earlier ceiling proceedings were concerned, they were not to be re-opened. By the second notice only some additional land was being proposed to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority discharged the notice in so far as it was proposed to declare some additional land as surplus land. The appellate Court was right in holding that as the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act had been discharged by the Prescribed Authority therefore, no appeal lay against such order. The petitioner's grievance, that he should have been allowed to canvass the correctness of the orders passed in the earlier ceiling proceedings, is correct in law. The earlier ceiling proceedings had become final as the appellate Court in the said proceedings dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his judgment dated 30-10-1975. The Prescribed Authority was entitled in the subsequent ceiling proceedings not to open the earlier finding and only proceed to determine the additional surplus land in view of the change in law. THIS is the latest view of the Division Bench in the case of Kishan Kumar v. State of U, P. (Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1977 decided on 21-9- 1979). In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.