M. P. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land holdings Act.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner Hakim Khan was issued the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter, both the tenure-holder and the State went up in cross-appeals and both these appeals were decided by the appellate court on 14-9-1975 and 1. 20 acres was declared as surplus land. The said order became final. Subsequently, after the amendment of the Ceiling Act, a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner whereby 6. 34 acres of irrigated land was sought to be declared as surplus; a true copy of the said notice has not been annexed to the writ petition. However, it has been referred to in the orders passed by the Ceiling authorities. Objections were filed by the petitioner and one of his objections was that in the earlier ceiling proceedings some land had already been declared as surplus land and there was no occasion for issuing a fresh notice to him under Section 10 (2) of the Act. It was further contended that the earlier order should operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings. Certain other pleas were taken with which we are not concerned. The Prescribed Authority framed issues and the first issue was whether the order passed in the earlier ceiling proceedings would operate as res judicata in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-7-1978 decided the objections of the petitioner and held that 5,72 acres of irrigated land was liable to be declared as surplus in the hands of the petitioner and since 1. 20 acres had already been declared as surplus land over which possession had also been taken, therefore, only 4. 52 acres of the irrigated land was further liable to be declared as surplus. In the said order, it was held that the earlier proceedings would not operate as res judicata due to provisions contained in Section 38-B of the Act. A true copy of the said order passed by the prescribed Authority on 31-7-1978 is Annexure b to the petition. It seems that thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the appellate court but the copy of the remand order has not been annexed to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority passed his order dated 28-1-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure c to the petition. Against the said order dated 28-1-1980, an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed as not maintainable by the appellate court on 12-8-1980 and a true copy of the appellate courts judgment is Annexure d to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri K. B. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the Prescribed Authority and the lower appellate court held that there was no surplus land in the hands of the petitioner as a result of the adjudication in the subsequent ceiling proceedings, it was not open to them to hold that the adjudication in the earlier ceiling proceedings continued to subsist. It should be seen that the prescribed Authority by its impugned order dated 28-1-1980 (Annexure c) discharged the subsequent notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act in the subsequent mailing proceedings. Despite the said order passed by the Prescribed Authority discharging the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, the petitioner filed an appeal on the ground that the Prescribed Authority should have also quashed the earlier order dated 14-9-1975 whereby the appellate court had declared, 1. 20 acres as surplus land. In the appeal it was prayed that the said earlier order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document