Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under :-

"(i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-3-2002 passed by opposite party No.2 contained in Annexure No-2 and order dated 28-10-2002 passed by opposite party No-1 contained in Annexure No-1 to this petition.

(ii) ...

(iii) ..."

3. The dispute pertains to Gata No. 613, measuring 19 biswa and 5 biswansi, situated in village Rampur Puwari, Pargana Amsin, Tehsil and District Faizabad (now Ayodhya). Originally, the land was recorded in the name of late Shankar Singh after the abolition of zamindari, and was thereafter cultivated by Sita Ram, father of the petitioner, since the year 1953. His name was recorded in the Khasra and subsequently in Khatauni Part-II under Class-9 entries on the basis of continuous possession.

4. On 9-8-1965, Smt. Dukharaji filed a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 seeking declaration and possession. Her claim of Sirdari rights was dismissed. On 3-1-1978, Sita Ram obtained a decree under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, wherein he was declared bhumidhar of Gata No. 613. Based on this decree, his name was entered in Khatauni for the years 1387–1392 Fasli. In ceiling proceedings, Plot No. 613 was included as surplus land by order dated 9-12-1976.

5. Sita Ram thereafter filed a correction application on 1-12-1978, asserting that Gata No. 615, and not Gata No. 613, should be treated as surplus. The Prescribed Authority passed a correction order on 17-04-1979, declaring Gata No. 615 surplus in place of Gata No. 613.

6. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act on 23-07-1997, asserting (i) that Gata No. 613 was wrongly treated as surplus because the land had already been decreed in favour of his father on 3-1-1978, (ii) that the entries in the revenue records supported continuous possession since 1953, and (iii) that the case involved a double entry, one in ceiling Khata No. 473 and another in petitioner's Khatauni.

7. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection on 30-03-2002, holding that (i) Gata No. 613 belonged to the original tenure-holder Smt. Dukhrani, (ii) the decree dated 03-01-1978 was passed after the cut-off date 24-01-1971, and any transaction or declaration after the cut-off date is to be ignored under Section 5(6) of the Ceiling Act.

8. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 28-10- 2002, observing that (i) the order dated 03-01-1978 conferred no benefit upon the petitioner, (ii) the correction order dated 17-04-1979 was obtained by suppression of material facts and without hearing the State or original tenure-holder, (iii) and the ceiling notice (Form 3) originally proposed to declare both Gata 613 and Gata 615 surplus.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the declaratory decree dated 03-01-1978 in Suit under Section 229 -B has attained finality and established Sita Ram’s rights as bhumidhar. The said decree has never been chall