By the Court.—One Nachkau son of late Raghunandan, resident of village Dabhawan, Block, Chaka, Tehsil Karchana, district Allahabad was the tenure holder of following agricultural holdings.

S.No.	Village/Mauja	Gata No.	Area (Sq.Mtrs)
1	Dabhawn	House and appurtenant land 204, 360	775.89 3278.75 193/89
2	Dajari Navgawar	305	1967.26
3	Mohabbatganj Uparhar	973SSS 976 1013	6466.29 228.09 6409.26
		Total	19319.43

2. He died on 11.8.1978 in his village. The aforesaid land remained in possession of Nachkau during his life time and after his death, his son Ram Sajiwan came in possession of the entire land which is claimed to be in actual physical possession of the petitioner-Ram Sajiwan till date. Some where in March, 2010, Lekhpal of Mauza informed the petitioner that the aforesaid land in dispute had been declared surplus and recorded in the name of the State Government after expunging the name of Ram Sajiwan son of Nachkau from the revenue record as owner of the land in dispute.

3. On inquiry and inspection on record, Ceiling Case No. 32768 of 1976 (State v. Nachkau), an area of 17819.43 Sq. Meters, out of total land in dispute i.e. 19319.43 Sq. Meters has been declared as surplus by the competent authority by order dated 12.1.1983. It was also gathered on inspection of the record, that a notice dated 30.10.1982 alongwith Draft Statement under Section 8 of Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 had been issued by the competent authority and that on the back of notice, the process server had made endorsement as under;

^^lsok esa]

ekSds ij njoktk cUn Fkk A rFkk irk pyk fd updm e`rd gSA rks mUgha ds njokts ds vUnj pLik fd;k rFkk ftldk njoktk iwjc gS rFkk dPpk rFkk iDdk edku gSA

vkse izdk'k

20&11&82^^

4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is apparent from the notice dated 30.10.1982 aforesaid and its draft statement that it was never served on the tenure holder-Nachkau personally during his life time nor upon his family members after his death and the only method of service by way of affixation (chaspa) is on the door of the house. He has relied upon Section 8 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as the Act) and Rules 5 and 8 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) and would submit that ex parte order dated 12.1.1983 passed by the competent authority was against a dead person, namely Nachkau declaring an area of 17819.43 Sq.meters of his land as surplus. It is also stated by Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in the case that it is apparent from the record that there exists a final statement issued by the competent authority under Section 9 of the Act, according to which, copy of the same was served upon Ram Sajiwan son of Nachkau, the petitioner in this case after obtaining his signature on 19.2.1985 and that a copy of final statement under the aforesaid Section 9 of the Act was never served upon Ram Sajiwan, nor there exists his signature regarding receipt of final statement. Ram Sajiwan is said to be an illiterate person who is claimed to have not made any endorsement, signature or thumb impression regarding receipt of final statement and the same appears to have been forged by some Process Server. Therefore, the whole proceedings under the Act and the Rules framed here under are contrary to law.

5. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the orders dated 14.2.1990 under Section 10 sub-clause (5) of the Act alleged to have been served by the Process Server on 16.6.1990 upon Ram Sajiwan were forged by the Process Server though possession of the surplus land was never handed over to the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 14.11.1990 as claimed by the respondents. He has also relied on Rule 6 of Rule 1976 and states that the competent aut