The legal heirs of a recorded tenure holder are entitled to contest the determination of surplus land, and compliance with notice requirements is essential for the validity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders passed under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, wherein the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 26.06.1985 has rejected the objections preferred by the petitioners and the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad has rejected the appeal by means of order dated 10.12.1990 affirming the findings of the said Prescribed Authority.

3. Though facts in brief necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that once Brij Mohan Singh was a recorded tenure holder with regard to land situated at Village Mau-Atwara, Pargana Jagdishpur, Tehsil Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was issued to Brij Mohan Singh, the recorded tenure holder on 30.07.1974, who had died prior to the issuance of notice on 24.04.1974. The said notice was duly received by his sons i.e., Rameshwar Singh, Jagat Pal Singh and Ram Singh, who filed their objections against the notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 on 09.09.1974. The Prescribed Authority duly considered the objections raised by the legal heirs of the recorded tenure holder and by means of order dated 30.12.1974 declared 4.66 hectares of the land of recorded tenure holder as surplus. An appeal was filed against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 30.12.1974, which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for consideration afresh after treating the legal heirs to be the tenure holders. The Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 31.12.1976 again decided the case against the petitioners against which the appeal, which was preferred before the District Judge, Sultanpur was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

4. It is in the aforesaid facts that the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 21.2.1978 and remitted the matter to the appellate authority to be decided on merits after condoning the delay. In the remand proceedings the IInd Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal preferred by the petitioners and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same after issuing notices to the petitioners by means of his judgment and order dated 24.11.1981. The Prescribed Authority in the remand proceedings had issued notices to the petitioners and has duly considered all the objections and again rejected the same by means of impugned order dated 26.06.1985 against which the appeal has already been dismissed on 10.12.1990 and both the orders have been assailed by the petitioners before this Court.

5. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that once the recorded tenure holder Brij Mohan Singh died on 24.4.1974 and the land was inherited by his three sons Rameshwar Singh, Jagat Pal Singh and Ram Singh, who claimed before the Prescribed Authority that now they were the tenure holders and proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, should be proceeded treating them to be recorded tenure holders and their land should be determined as to whether is in excess of the ceiling limits or not.

6. This ground was raised by the petitioners right up to the appellate stage and even before the Prescribed Authority in the remand proceedings. With this argument they were able to persuade the appellate court who passed the order dated 24.11.1981 to issue notices to the petitioners before proceeding further in the matter. It is only on the direction of the appellate court that the Prescribed Authority had issued notices to the petitioners in the remand p