Point of Law: appellate Authority found that earlier notice issued to father of the petitioners in which determination took place is different than the notice which was subsequently issued to his sons Avadhram and Baburam.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Mr. J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing the respondents-State, and gone through the record.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking quashing of the order dated 19.08.1998 passed by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya), Ayodhya and the order dated 02.09.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short “the Act 1960”).

3. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 19.02.1992, issued notice to father of the petitioners, Bhagwan Prasad. In CLH Form-3 total land area 33.119 acres was proposed to be declared as surplus. Besides notice to father of the petitioners, notice was given to other persons, whose names were recorded in the revenue record in respect of the said land, as provided in the Rules, framed under the Act, 1960. All the persons came before the Prescribed Authority and filed their objections against declaration of 33.119 acres irrigated land as surplus.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the appellate Authority. The appellate Authority noted that the Prescribed Authority, in his order dated 19.02.1992, held that Ramrati, her husband, Shivratan, who had two brothers, Bhushan and Dalthambhan. Baburram and Avadhram were sons of Bhushan. Bhagwan Prasad was son of Dalthambhan. Ramrati was the wife of Shivratan. All these persons were part of joint Hindu family.

5. Notices were issued to Baburam, Avadhram and Bhagwan Prasad under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960. There was a joint Khata in the name of Ramrati and Bhagwan Prasad. Area of said Khata was 30.499 acres. The said Khata was included in ceiling notice earlier issued to the tenure holders. However, this Court vide judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No.3243 of 1976 held that Ramrati had 5/8 share in the said Khata. However, the same was included in the notice earlier issued by the Prescribed Authority. In view thereof, the Prescribed Authority was directed to issue fresh notice.

6. On remand, fresh notice was issued to tenure holders of village Siletanganj, Jooda, Bhatehta, Pargana and Tehsil Nanpara, and land of village Kevradgirah, Tehsil Salempur, District Deori was included. The land of village Jooda in Gata No. 150/0.583 hectares and land of village Bhatehta in Gata No. 2804/0-414 acres and remaining land of village Siletanganj, which was included in the notice. The appellate Authority found that the land of village Shivpura Semara, Shivnagara and Siletanganj, which had been included in the notice, was different from the land included in the earlier notice.

7. In the present notice, the land of Gata No. 557/11-855 acres was included in the second notice, which was not included in earlier notice. The appellate Authority also found from perusal of the CLH From-3 that in respect of land of village Skeltanganj, which was in possession of Baburam and Bhagwan Prasad, was included in the notice issued to them. The authority further found that the land, which was not part of the notice issued to Bhagwan Prasad, was not included in the notice issued to Baburam and Avadhram. In view therefore, the appellate Authority found that earlier notice issued to father of the petitioners in which determination took place is different than the notice which was subsequently issued to his sons Avadhram and Baburam. This was only question, which was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the appellate Authority.

8. This Court does not find that the appellate Authority has committed any error of jurisdiction or law while deciding the appeal inasmuch as the land in different notice, one issued to father of the petitioners and second issued to Baburam and Avadhram, was different land. This C