The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, Advocate and Sri Syed Ahmad Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.10.2002 and impugned judgment and order dated 29.4.2002, passed by opposite party No.2 in Appeal No.33/1999- 2000 Under Section- 13 of the Ceiling Act, contained at Annexure No.14 and 10 to the writ petition and impugned order dated 24.2.2000, passed by opposite party No.3, Prescribed Authority, Sitapur in Case No.3/2/3 Under Section- 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act, contained at Annexure No.8 to the writ petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties and directing them to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed land and excluded the disputed land from the Ceiling Act, in the interest of justice.

(iii)...

(iv)..."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the disputed land was recorded in the name of Pirtha Singh, father in law of the petitioner, thereafter a notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act was issued and served to Pirtha Singh, recorded tenure holder on 10.12.1975. Subsequently Pirtha Singh filed an objection on 24.12.1975 against the aforesaid notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act before the prescribed authority. He claimed much of the land was unirrigated, and Gata Nos. 139 and 211 were wrongly shown as irrigated. He also stated that some land had been transferred through registered sale deeds before the cut-off date 8.6.1973.

4. An Advocate Commissioner submitted his commission report stating that the land was unirrigated. The prescribed authority vide order dated 18.6.1976, declared 11.70 acres of irrigated land as surplus without considering the legal point that Ram Singh was alive on 8.6.1973, hence the family was entitled to an additional 2 hectares under Section 5(3)(a), it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has filed multiple appeals and applications, including Writ Petition No. 50(M/S) (Ceiling) of 2002 before this Court against the impugned orders dated 29.4.2002 and 24.2.2000, passed by opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 which was disposed of finally on 29.8.2002 with the direction to the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow to consider and dispose of the petitioner's restoration application as expeditiously as possible within 6 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. She seeks to set aside the impugned orders and have her case reconsidered.

6. The petitioner challenges orders dated 29.4.2002 and 24.2.2000, declaring her land as surplus. It is submitted that the authorities wrongly classified her land as irrigated, ignoring an earlier report dated 5.4.1976 that classified it as unirrigated. The Additional Commissioner's order dated 29.4.2002 was ex-parte, without giving the petitioner a hearing opportunity. The petitioner filed a writ petition No.50 (M/S) (Ceiling) of 2002, which was disposed of on 29.8.2002, directing the Additional Commissioner to consider her restoration application. The Additional Commissioner rejected the restoration appl