S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority disposing of the four appeals filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the U. P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings Act directed against the orders passed by the prescribed authority in Case No. 45 being orders dated 19. 7. 93. 17. 2. 95, 28. 2. 95, 24. 3. 95 and 31. 3. 95 as welt as the orders passed by the prescribed authority in Case No. 48/18 being orders dated 30. 8. 93. 7. 3. 95. 20. 3. 95 and 29. 4. 95, he has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders declaring an area of 69. 99 acres of agricultural holdings of Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi to be surplus.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.

( 3 ) THE parties have exchanged their affidavits and their learned counsel have requested that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage.

( 4 ) THE relevant facts as they emerge from the materials placed on record lie in a narrow compass. In the proceedings under Section 10 of the U. P, imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, notice was Issued to the recorded tenureholder Sri Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi in the year 1962. The prescribed authority had registered Case No. 45 on the aforesaid notice. Sri Bisheshwar Pratap sahi died on 9. 4. 89. The petitioner is the son of the original tenureholder Sri Bisheshwar Pratap sahi. Another case being Case No. 48/18 was also registered against Sri Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi on the basis of another notice served on 12. 7. 75.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has asserted that Sri Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi had died on 9. 4. 89 and inspite of his death without bringing on record his heirs and legal representatives and without any notice to him the prescribed authority determined the extent of the surplus land treating Bisheshwar Pratap sahi to be the exclusive tenureholder of the entire holdings in question without affording any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. In the circumstances the petitioner had filed an application on 19. 7. 93 but no orders were passed on the said application. The Appeal No. 102 filed by the petitioner was directed against the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 19. 7. 93.

( 6 ) THE grievance of the petitioner was that the various transfers of the land in dispute effected by bisheshwar Pratap Sahi during the period elapsing between 1951 to 1961 were erroneously ignored. His further grievance was that the land in dispute constituted grove, Sir and Khudkasht prior to the date of vesting and the succession to the interest in such holdings was governed by the personal law. It was claimed that since the petitioner had been born prior to the date of vesting, he had half share therein and, therefore, he was a co-tenure-holder to the extent of half share to the holdings in question in his own independent right. The Appeal No. 103 filed by the petitioner was directed against the order of the prescribed authority dated 31. 3. 95 disposing of the Case No. 48. The petitioners case, so far as this appeal was concerned, was also to the effect that he had not been served with, a notice and the holdings in dispute which belonged to him in his independent right were erroneously taken as belonging to Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi with the result that the determination of the extent of the surplus land treating the same to be the exclusive holding of Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi was rendered vitiated in law. The petitioner claimed that the land in dispute was ancestral Sir and Khudkasht and he had half share therein. The Appeal No. 34 and Appeal No. 136 filed by the petitioner were directed against the interlocutory orders passed by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority vide the impugned order dismissed the appeals directed against the interlocutory orders as not m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document