The court upholds previous rulings on land allocation while remanding specific plots for reevaluation under existing law.

1. This petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960.

2. In brief the facts are these : -

3. The petitioner received the notice under S.10(2) of the Act and he filed objections, a true copy whereof is annexure No. 1 to the petition. The Prescribed Authority decided the said objections by his order dated 30-6-1978. The petitioner has not annexed to the petition any copy of the said order dated 30-6-1977. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same was allowed by the appellate court by its judgement dated 21-3-1977. Again no copy of the said judgement has been annexed to the petition. The appellate court remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority with certain directions. After the remand the Prescribed Authority decided the case by his order dated 29-7-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure - 4 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioner and a true copy of the memorandum of appeal is Annexure - 5 to the petition. The appellate court dismissed the appeal by its judgement dated 17-9-1977, a true copy whereof is annexure - 6 to the petition.

4. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.

5. In this case a controversy was referred to a Large Bench touching upon the interpretation of S.4(ii) of the Act. The larger Bench decided the said controversy against the petitioner and it was held that the enumeration of the areas in the said provision is exhaustive and not illustrative. It was further held that in view of the inclusion of the Ceiling Act in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, the vires of the said provision could not be attacked on the ground that it was hit by Art.14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the said contention has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me after I heard the petition subsequent to the decision of the larger Bench.

6. Learned counsel next contended that after the case had been remanded by the appellate court holding that the petitioner had only one half share in the land and the remaining one half portion fell to the share of his son Onkar Singh, a fresh notice under S.10(2) of the Act should have been issued to the petitioner Har Prasad Singh. In my opinion, this contention has no merit. The appellate court had accepted the contention of the petitioner that from his holding which was shown in C.L.H. Form 3 the share of his son should have been excluded. The appellate court accepted this contention and directed that such half share should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. There was no necessity for issuing a fresh notice under S.10(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself conceded that the non - issuance of a fresh notice did not result in any prejudice to the petitioner but he contended that in the interest of correctness of the proceedings, a fresh modified notice should have been issued to the petitioner. As I have stated above, there was no necessity for any fresh notice and in any case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected.

7. Learned counsel then contended that certain plots were abadi plots and they were liable to be excluded. In this connection the learned counsel referred to para 18 of the writ petition and placed reliance on a decision of Deoki Nanda