JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner Preetam Singh has approached this Court, by means of the present petition, challenging the order dated 11.04.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority(Ceiling/Upper Collector, Kheri) contained in Annexure No.2 to the petition and the order dated 12.01.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No.4 to the petition.

3. The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the present case, are that in respect of the land in dispute, the petitioner was served with a notice as per Section 29 of the UTTAR PRADESH IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) proposing 19.682 acres irrigated land as surplus giving benefit of 18.03 acres irrigated land to the petitioner. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted the objections dated 06.03.1995 on the ground that the notice is barred by res-judicata and it is time barred. The petitioner also took an objection that the land of the petitioner is un-irrigated and he is entitled for the maximum benefit. A plea was also taken that holdings have wrongly been shown. On the basis of the pleadings, the following 7 issues were framed :

okn fcUnq

1- D;k iquZfuxZr uksfVl esa vkifÙkdrkZ dh tksr dk fooj.k xyr fn[kk;k x;k gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\

2- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ ds fo:} lhfyax vf/kfu;e ds varxZr okn pydj vfUre :i ls fu.khZr gks pqdk gS] tks i{kdkjksa ds e/; jslT;wMhdsVk dk && j[krk gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\

3- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ ds fo:} iquZfuxZr uksfVl dkyckf/kr gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\

4- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ dh leLr Hkwfe vflafpr gS rFkk bl vk'k; gsrq iwoZ fu.khZr vfHker i{kdkjksa ds e/; jslT;wMhdsVk dk j[krk gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\

5- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ vŒtksŒlhŒ vf/kfu;e ds varxZr Ánr vf/kdre ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\

6- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ ds fo:} iquZfuxZr uksfVl /kkj.kh; ugha gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\

7- vkifÙkdrkZ fdl lgk;rk dk vf/kdkjh gS\

4. The oral evidence of Area Lekhpal Sri Hussain Ali, Sri Awdhesh Kumar, Lekhpal who prepared the file and Assistant Registrar Kanoongo Sri Krishna were produced in oral evidence on behalf of the State and CH Form 45 and three Intekhab Khatauni of the 1399-1404 Fasli and Intekhab Khasra of 1402 Fasli were filed. The petitioner produced the oral evidence of Sri Himachal son of Moti Lal and himself. In documentary evidence, petitioner filed the mutation State versus Preetam Singh under Section 10(2) and copy of the order dated 18.07.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kheri in Appeal 36 of 1985; Preetam Singh versus State of U.P.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material and evidence on record, the prescribed authority declared 19.682 acres irrigated land as surplus as no choice was given by the petitioner and the benefit of 18.03 acres was given to the petitioner. The details of the land declared surplus is given below:-

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal No. 253 of 1996-97 against the order passed by the prescribed authority, which has been rejected by means of the order dated 12.01.1999 after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the consolidation proceedings, two sons of the petitioner, who had become major were alloted separate chaks but no notice was given to them, whereas the notice was required to be given to them being the tenure hol