Subsequent purchasers cannot move an application under Section 12-A for excluding land from being declared surplus.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Tarun Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 to 6 and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the order dated 03.06.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority thereby allowing the application under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 preferred by the respondents and also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in its order dated 30.09.2002.

3. The facts in brief are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, who was recorded tenure holder was served with the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 calling upon her to explain as to why area of 31-33 acres irrigated land be not declared surplus. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners, namely, Gayatri Devi filed her objections and contested the case before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority rejected her objections against which an appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. Assailing both the orders the recorded tenure holder had filed a writ petition before this Court. This Court had remanded the matter and certain aspects of the case were directed to be re-looked by the Prescribed Authority, and accordingly a fresh notice was issued where the Prescribed Authority again rejected the objections. Against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 31.03.1979, no appeal was filed by the recorded tenure holder and the order of the Prescribed Authority attained finality.

4. It seems that after the proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were finalized by the Prescribed Authority, opposite parties no. 4 to 6, who had purchased the land from the recorded tenure holder on 16.02.1972, moved an application under Section 12-A (d) and Section 13-A of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 praying that the order dated 31.05.1979 of the Prescribed Authority may be reviewed and two plots, which had been purchased by them, namely plot no. 298 and 324 may be excluded from the land, which had been declared surplus, at the hands of the recorded tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority considering the said application allowed the same by means of order dated 30.11.1979. The petitioners had preferred an appeal against the said order stating that no notices were issued by the Prescribed Authority and the recorded tenure holder was never given any opportunity of hearing for allowing the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 filed by the subsequent purchaser, but the appeal was also rejected by means of order dated 09.10.1980.

5. Aggrieved by both the orders allowing the application of the respondents, the petitioners had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 3473 of 1980 alleging that the Prescribed Authority had allowed the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and this Court by means of its order dated 13.09.1988 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.11.1979 and the appellate order dated 09.10.1980 and remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for passing a fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holder.

6. It is in the remand proceedings that the impugned order dated 03.06.1992 has been passed by the Prescribed Authority again allowing the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 and excluding plot no. 298 and 324 from the surplus lands at the hands of the recorded tenure holder and further directed that the surplus land will be taken from p