PAVITRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By means of this writ petition petitioners have challenged the judgment of the appellate authority and of the prescribed authority dated 19.12.1996 and 16.9.1996 (Annexures-8 and 6 respectively) by which petitioner's application under Section 11 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected.

(2.) THERE appears to be no dispute about the fact that proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Act was started against one Data Ram. Petitioners who are although married daughters of Data Ram, referred above but they claim to be having their independent rights on the basis of registered sale deed in their favour dated 22.9.1971 on the basis of which their names were also mutated on 14.1.1972. In the proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Act land covered by the sale deed in favour of the petitioners was claimed for being excluded, but Data Ram could not succeed and the prescribed authority by its judgment dated 2.1.1975 declared certain area as surplus. Having remained unsuccessful upto this Court Data Ram took up the matter to the Apex Court. During pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court Data Ram died. It is claimed that although he left behind him Dayawati his widow as heir but by moving substitution application petitioners were also brought on record. Finally the Apex Court also dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 14.11.1995 by accepting the findings of the authorities that the agreement was manufactured. After dismissal of the appeal by the Apex Court it is on the premises that when Ceiling authorities intended to take possession from the petitioners then they came to know about the fact that their land is to be taken by virtue of declaration of land as surplus in the proceedings against Data Ram, they filed objection on 13.12.1995 under Section 11 (2) of the Act which came to be rejected by the respondents 2 and 3 by judgments referred above against which petitioners have come up to this Court.

(3.) IN response to the aforesaid submissions Sri A. K. Banerjee, learned standing counsel submits that as genuineness of the sale deed on the basis of which petitioners are laying their claim has already been adjudicated upto the Apex Court and it has not been found to be genuine transaction, petitioners are not entitled to get opportunity in the matter specially in view of the fact that they were brought on record in the proceedings before the Apex Court and they had full knowledge of the proceedings but they have never pleaded about their claim. It is further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 has rightly taken the view that the contention of the petitioners that they could come to know about their factum of taking of their land on account of declaration of the land as surplus on 30.11.1995 cannot be accepted as petitioners were brought on record in the proceedings before the Apex Court itself. It is then submitted that in view of Rule 19 (4) of the Rules where tenureholder dies his heirs or other legal representatives are to file their objection within the time so provided which petitioners failed to file and thus petitioners cannot be permitted to get the same controversy re-opened by filing present objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act. It is argued that on the fact, rejection of the petitioner's objection cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner.