JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the State.

2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13-04-1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the order dated 29-06-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), District-Barabanki.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that a notice under section 10(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960) was issued to the petitioner on 11-09-1974. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why the statement under section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 1960 be not taken as correct. As per the version of the petitioner, the notice was not served upon him and therefore, he could not file objections as a result whereof, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) District-Barabanki passed an order on 25-11-1974, whereby the land in question was declared as surplus land.

4. As soon as, the aforesaid fact came into the knowledge of the petitioner, he submitted an application dated 02-01-1975 before the prescribed authority, under section 11(2) of Act, 1960. Just thereafter, on 09-01-1975, the petitioner moved another application for spot inspection. He again moved an application on 20-01-1975 mentioning therein that ‘Baba Guru Charan Das’ is ‘Mahant’ of ‘Kuti-Manipur’ and the property in question belongs to a ‘Math’ and this property belongs to a trust and there is possession of ‘Math’ over there. He also submitted that income of ‘Math’ is wholly utilised for realigous and charitable purposes and not for the petitioner or his defendants. The Prescribed Authority, on the aforesaid application passed an order and directed the Naib Tehsildar, Haidergarh to make an inspection and submit a report by 25-01-1975. In pursuance thereof, the Naib Tehsildar, enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the effect that the land in question is un-irrigated as the same is not within the Command Area of the Canal or Tubewell. He also reported that plot no. 1024 is a ‘Jheel’ and in most of the area, paddy crops are sown and the land belongs to a ‘Math’ and the petitioner is “Mahant.” On the aforesaid report, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10-03-1975, discharged the notices issued against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10-03-1975, the State of U.P. instituted an appeal under section 13 of the ‘Act 1960’ which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad vide order dated 26-04-1976 and the matter was remanded back to the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh.

5. After the matter remitted back to the Prescribed Authority, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioner, filed under section 11(2) of the ‘Act 1960’ as the explanation with respect to the delay was not found sufficient. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present petitioner again filed an appeal which was allowed on 27-08-1977 and case was remanded back to opposite party no. 3 for decision afresh.

6. While deciding the matter, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26-03-1981 held that the property belongs to a ‘Math’ of ‘Baba Shahab Kabir Panti Saint’ and the income of the property is being utilized for religious and chartiable purposes. While passing the order aforesaid, the Prescribed Authority has considered the report of the Naib Tehsildar and entries of Khatauni of 1359 Fasli and Form 23 and Form 41 of Consolidation of Holdings Act.

7. Assailing the order dated 26-03-1981, the State of U.P. filed an appeal, which was allowed on 13-03-1984 and the case was again transmitted back to the opposite party no. 3 with direction to decide the ca