JUDGMENT

K.N. Misra, J. - The petitioners in both the aforesaid writ petitions were served with a notice issued under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short, the Act) wherein certain land was proposed to be declared as surplus land as the petitioners were said to have inherited the same from Jagan Nath Singh son of Chatra Pal Singh and thereby as a consequence of devolution by way of succession on them the land was found liable to be declared surplus in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. These notices were served on the petitioners on 1st July, 1982 and they had filed objection (dated)30th July, 1982 asserting therein that they have not inherited any land from the deceased tenure holder Jagannath Singh. It was contended by them that Jagannath Singh had executed a will dated 471979 in favour of Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Shiva Bahadur Singh son of Jitendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Shiva Kumari, widow of Kr. Bharat Singh. The names of the legatees were also mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 1151982 which was incorporated in the Khatauni of 1389 Fasli to 1394 Fasli on 15th June, 1982. This Khatauni also incorporates the order of mutation dated 18101981 passed in favour of the petitioners Vijai Pratap Singh and Raj Pratap Singh sons of Kr. Bharat Singh and Jitendra Bahadur Singh son of Jagannath Singh as heir and successors. This order of mutation appears to have been passed under Section 33A of the Land Revenue Act which according to petitioners became ineffective by subsequent aforesaid order of mutation dated 1151982. The petitioners had, thus, contended that they did not acquire any land beyond the prescribed ceiling limit, and, as such, notices issued to them under Sections 29/30 of the Act deserve to be cancelled.

2. The case was contested on behalf of the State and it was asserted that the land in dispute, which belonged to the deceased tenureholder Jagannath Singh, had devolved on the petitioners Jitendra Bahadur Singh and Vjjai Pratap Singh and also on his brother Raj Pratap Singh. It was asserted that Vijai Pratap Singh and Jitendra Bahadur Singh hold land beyond the prescribed ceiling limit, and, as such, notices have been correctly issued to the petitioners for determination of surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The will executed by Jagannath Singh was also challenged. It was also indicated that notices were issued on 28th May, 1982 and on that date the name of the petitioners stood mutated in the revenue records as heirs and successors of the deceased tenureholder Jagannath Singh. The will in question was said to be inoperative as the same was executed to circumvent the provisions of Ceiling Act and to save the land from the operation of the Ceiling Act.

3. The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) framed issues. The first issue was to the effect whether Jagannath Singh, the grand father of Vijai Pratap Singh had executed any will in favour of Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Shiv Bahadur Singh and Srimati Shiva Kumari and whether the will deed in question was given effect to and incorporated in the papers ? If so, its effect? The second issue was to the effect whether Vijai Pratap Singh had 27 Bighas 2 Biswas and 7 Biswansis land recorded in his name and whether it will be beyond the operation of the Ceiling Act? Similar issue was framed in respect of landholding of Jitendra Bahadur Singh. After taking evidence of the parties, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) vide order, dated 3081983 rejected the objection filed by the petitioners and declared land mentioned in the order as surplus land. He recorded a finding that no reliance can be placed on the will in question as it is said to have been executed after the appointed date, i.e. 2411971 and it has been executed to avoid the effect of the operation of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed by