The prescribed authority is required to examine the relevant khasras of respective years to determine the nature of the land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the sons of Lodhey Ram, the original tenure holder, impugning the order dated 31.8.1995 and 30.9.1997 passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (For short 'the Act, 1960').

2. Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to the father of the petitioners. In CLH Form-3 annexed with the notice, area of 7.25 acres in terms of the irrigated land was proposed to be declared as surplus. Father of the petitioners filed objection against the said notice. One of the prime objection was that land of the father of the petitioners was un-irrigated and it was not an irrigated land and in respect of Plot Nos.306, 307, 308, 321, 328 and 329, it was wrongly shown as irrigated land.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the prescribed authority, father of the petitioners died. Thereafter, the petitioners entered into the proceedings and filed other documentary evidence and also adduced oral evidence to prove their contention that land in Plot Nos.306, 307, 308, 321, 328 and 329 was an un-irrigated land.

4. The prescribed authority, however, vide order dated 7.2.1975 declared the area of 7.25 acres land of the petitioners in terms of irrigated land as surplus. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the prescribed authority dated 7.2.1975, petitioners filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge. However, the appeal was allowed vide order dated 7.8.1975 and the matter was remanded back to the prescribed authority for deciding the case of the petitioners afresh.

5. The prescribed authority again vide order dated 31.3.1976, on remand, declared area of 7.25 acres land in terms of irrigated land as surplus. Against the said order passed by the prescribed authority, petitioners preferred an appeal. The appellate court, however, vide order dated 27.9.1976 again directed the prescribed authority to declare the surplus land taking account the choice given by the petitioners under Section 11(C) of the Act, 1960 and dismissed the appeal on merit.

6. The petitioners again filed objection 11(2) of the Act, 1960 before the prescribed authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.5.1980. Against the said order, the petitioners again preferred an appeal before the District Judge. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.8.1980.

7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.8.1990 passed by the appellate court, petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3359 of 1980 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 4.9.1984 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the appellate court with certain directions.

8. From perusal of the order dated 4.9.1984 passed by this Court in Writ Petition no.3359 of 1980, the only point, which was to be considered by the appellate court, was about the nature of the land, whether the land in question was within the provisions of the Act, 1960 and whether it was un-irrigated land. The appellate court vide order dated 23.2.1995, on remand, remanded the matter back to the prescribed authority for decision in the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the observation/directions of this Court in the order dated 4.9.1984 passed in Writ Petition No.3359 of 1980.

9. The prescribed authority himself made spot inspection on 8.1.1990. It was said that no notice was given to the petitioners regarding spot inspection and the report was prepared by the prescribed authority behind the back of the petitioners. On the basis of the spot inspection, the prescribed authority decided the petitioners’ objection vide order dated 31.8.1995 and rejected the claim of the petitioners for the land being un-irrigated. Against the said order passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the appellate court. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide imp