KRISHNA MURARI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected writ petitions arising out of proceeding under the U. P. Imposition of ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) between the same parties.

( 2 ) HEARD S/sri N. K. Saxena, R. R. Sheoharey and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respective parties in both the writ petitions

( 3 ) ONE Khuman Singh (petitioner in writ petition No. 9714 of 1988) is the tenure holder against whom proceeding for determination of surplus land was initiated. Smt. Prema Devi (petitioner in writ petition No. 16412 of 1984) is transferee of certain plots belonging to Khuman Singh under sale deed dated 15. 4. 1972.

( 4 ) THE facts are that objection filed by Khuman Singh was rejected by the prescribed authority on 2. 11. 1974 against which he filed an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the prescribed authority. After remand Smt. Prema Devi also filed objection claiming herself to be the transferee of certain plots under sale deed dated 15. 4. 1972. The prescribed authority vide order dated 27. 1. 1977 declared an area of 4. 03 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus in the hands of Khuman Singh. It was also held that land transferred in favour of Smt. Prema Devi should not be declared surplus as there are other lands available with tenure holder which can be declared surplus. The appeal filed by tenure holder Khuman Singh was partly allowed and surplus area was reduced to 2. 73 acres. However, the finding of the prescribed authority that the land transferred in favour of Smt. Prema Devi should not be declared surplus was not disturbed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the prescribed authority obtained choice from the tenure holder Khuman Singh and accepted the same vide order dated 26. 12. 1979. The tenure holder gave all the plots which was transferred by him through sale deed in favour of Smt. Prema Devi in choice to be declared as surplus. Naib Tehsildar (Ceiling) moved an application to recall the order accepting the choice on the ground that plots indicated by the tenure holder khuman Singh in choice are not free from encumbrances and are recorded in the name of vendee smt. Prema Devi. The prescribed athority vide order dated 9. 3. 1980 recalled the order dated 26. 12. 1979 and declared certain other plots of the tenure holder Khuman Singh as surplus. Feeling aggrieved he filed an appeal which was allowed and the order of the prescribed authority dated 19. 3. 1980 was set aside and the earlier order dated 26. 12. 1979 was restored. This appellate order has been challenged by Smt. Prema Devi in writ petition No. 16412 of 1984. This court on 20. 11. 1984 stayed operation of the appellate order. After the stay order tenure holder Khuman singh was asked to give fresh choice and he again indicated the same plots which were transferred by him in favour of Smt. Prema Devi to be declared surplus. The prescribed authority called for a report and Naib Tehsildar again submitted a report that plots indicated by tenure holder Khuman Singh in his choice are recorded in the name of Smt. Prema Devi and are in her possession as such the choice is not liable to accepted. The prescribed authority on 27. 4. 1985 rejected the choice given by tenure holder Khuman Singh and directed to take possession of plots declared surplus vide order dated 19. 3. 1980. Khuman Singh again filed an appeal challenging this order which was dismissed on 12. 2. 1988 as not maintainable with a finding that possession of the plots declared surplus vide order dated 19. 3. 1980 has already been taken by the state. This appellate order has been challenged by Khuman Singh in writ petition No. 9714 of 1988.

( 5 ) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 16412 of 1984 that having regard to the purpose for which Section 12a and particularly, Clause (d) of the proviso were enacted, the land purchased by bonafide transferee for consideration is liable to be excluded from the su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document