The redetermination of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act must occur within two years of the initial declaration, or it is jurisdictionally invalid.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ACSC for the State - respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the respondent no. 2 declaring the land of the petitioners as surplus.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a notice under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') was issued in the year 1974. The Prescribed Authority had initially decided the ceiling case vide order dated 10.11.1974, against which the appeal was decided on 30.12.1974 and the matter was again sent before the Prescribed Authority, who vide order dated 14.04.1976 held the sale deed dated 23.03.1971 as sham transaction, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 13.12.1976 holding the sale deed dated 23.03.1971 as valid. He further submits that the order dated 13.12.1976 had become final as the same was not challenged by the State. He further submits that on 06.06.1997, another notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners, against which the petitioners filed objection, which was rejected vide order dated 24.02.1999. Against the order dated 24.02.1999, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2001 remanding the matter back to the respondent no. 2. He further submits that the respondent no. 2, vide order dated 16.12.2004, rejected the objections of the petitioners declaring 7.518 hectares of land as surplus, against which an appeal was preferred, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.05.2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after a lapse of more than 22 years, second round of litigation was started and the notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued on 06.06.1997. He further submits that the land of the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 purchased vide registered sale deed cannot be clubbed with the land of the petitioner no. 1 and the same cannot be said to be sham transaction as the aforesaid sale deed has been held to be valid vide order dated 13.12.1976. He further submits that the courts below have failed to consider that once the ceiling proceedings have been decided on merits against the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3, the second proceedings on the same land cannot be maintainable unless further land has been acquired by the tenure holder after decision of the previous proceedings. He further submits that the sale deed executed by the petitioner no. 1 on 27.06.1980 in favour of the petitioner nos. 4 to 6 after the conclusion of the ceiling proceedings cannot be held to be barred by law and the land cannot be clubbed with the land of the petitioner no. 1.

5. He further submits that once the proceedings have been concluded in the year 1976 vide order dated 13.12.1976 passed in Appeal No. 113/1976, the same can only be re-initiated within two years thereafter and therefore, the subsequent proceedings initiated after 22 years are not justified. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Sadhu Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Executive Bareilly & Others [Writ C No. 467 of 2004, decided on 31.07.2023]. He prays for allowing of the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC submits that supports the impugned orders and submits that the proceedings h