The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'aggrieved person' under Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960, and the eligibility of petitioners to challenge the settlement of surplus land.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 6th February, 1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad.

3. Matter pertains to year 1998.

4. From perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that no counter affidavit has been filed by the State yet, since the matter pertains to year 1998, under such circumstances, no further time can be granted to the counsel for the State to file counter affidavit. Prima facie, it seems to be legal question involved in the matter, as such the Court is proceeding to hear this matter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ceiling proceeding was initiated in the year 1989 wherein the land of Raja Pratap Bahadur Singh was declared surplus including the present petitioners also. He submits that while initiating and concluding the aforesaid ceiling proceeding, no notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioners. He further submits that on 26th December, 1990, lease under Section 26 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act, 1960') was granted in favour of the respondent no.2 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Barabanki and that lease was settled in favour of the respondent no.2.

6. He added that since ceiling proceeding was going on and during that ceiling proceeding CLH Form 23 was made available to the petitioners on 4th October, 1994 then the fact with regard to aforesaid ceiling proceeding came into knowledge of the petitioners. He further added that after the aforesaid information came to the petitioners, they filed an application under Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 for cancellation of Patta/lease granted in favour of respondent no.2. He submits that, at the very inception stage, the status quo was granted by respondent no.1 and after calling objections from the respondents, the matter was finally heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 2nd February, 1998, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

7. He also argued that the petitioners are co-tenure holders of Raja Pratap Bahadur Singh, whose land considered and declared surplus land by the prescribed authority.

8. He further submits that, in fact, it is a case where the ceiling proceeding was concluded in absence of petitioners but it was done without issuance of any notice. He submits that absence cannot be termed if no notices ever issued to the petitioners. He further added that in such a case remedy available to the petitioners was under Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 and as such he has rightly preferred an application under the aforesaid provision.

9. He has argued that the learned Additional Commissioner without considering the aforesaid provision has given its finding that the application under Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 is not maintainable. He added that finding of the Additional Commissioner is perverse as he has recorded the finding that no evidence was adduced by the present petitioners before the Additional Commissioner. In fact, the petitioners had adduced the evidences which have been discussed in the order dated on 21st February, 1998.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that from bare reading of Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 it is evident that the same is with regard to the settlement of surplus land. The head notes of the Section 27 itself connotes that the proceeding under Section 27 starts after the proceedings of declaration of ceiling land are concluded and such surplus land vests in the State.

11. He has added his argument and drawn attention towards sub-clause (i) of Clause 4 of Section 27 of the Act, 1960 and submits that since after the proceeding under Section 27(4), records available to the Commissione