Point of Law: Adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.”

JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sukhveer Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petition has been filed assailing order dated 01.07.1991 whereby petitioner's objections filed against the alleged second notice given to him under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1960) has been rejected. A further prayer for issuing a direction to opposite parties not to proceed for re-determination of petitioner's holdings in terms of second notice has also been made.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially, a general notice under Section 9 of Act of 1960 was issued on 11.06.1973 whereafter a specific notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to petitioner on 23.04.1974. Since there was no adequate receipt of the said notice, a subsequent notice was issued to petitioner whereafter his land was determined to be surplus and was adjusted as per the petitioner's option. It is submitted that aforesaid determination made on 13.01.1975 declaring an area of 5 Bighas, 8 Biswas in terms of irrigated land became final qua the petitioner. It is submitted that the surplus land was thereafter taken possession of by State since neither party preferred any appeal.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that thereafter a second notice was issued in July, 1989 under Section 10(2) of Act of 1960 proposing declaration of other properties held by petitioner as surplus. Petitioner filed his objections to aforesaid notice on 01.08.1989 in which the primary objection advanced was that the fresh/second notice was barred by limitation under provisions of Section 13A of Act of 1960 as well as Section 31(3) of Amending Act no. 18 of 1972. Additionally, objections were also taken specifically stating that petitioner was not in possession of any property belonging to one Smt. Sarswati Devi as Benami transaction. It was said that the said Sarswati Devi was step mother of petitioner and had separate holdings which were independent of petitioner and as such her holdings could not have been clubbed with that of petitioner.

5. Aforesaid objections were rejected by means of impugned order dated 01.07.1991 against which petition has been preferred. Initially vide order dated 19.01.2006, a preliminary objection had been taken regarding maintainability of petition due to availability of Appeal under Section 13 of Act of 1960. The said preliminary objection was rejected by this Court holding the writ petition to be maintainable. Prior to aforesaid, impugned proceedings had been stayed by means of interim order dated 20.08.1991.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has laid much emphasis on the fact that a second notice is not provided for under the provisions of the Act and only re-determination under Section 13-A of Act of 1960 can be made in case of any mistake apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that a fresh notice can however be issued but that can be only in terms of provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of Act of 1960, which are necessarily required to be fulfilled and indicated in the notice itself. It has further been submitted that impugned notice even otherwise is barred by limitation indicated in the Act.

7. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties have refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit filed in the petition. It is submitted that the alleged second notice was in fact a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of Act of 1960 and was issued since petitioner was found to be in possession of the land recorded in the name of Smt. Sarswati Devi, alleged step mother of petitioner. It is submitted that considering aforesaid, notice had been issued to petitioner under provisions of Sections 5 and 30 of Act of 1960 and is therefore maintainable. It has been further submitted that impugned order has considered all the objections taken by petitio