I.M.QUDDUSI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate and the learned standing Counsel.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Sukh Deo Prasad, who was tenure holder of the land in question died, leaving behind him his widow, Smt. Bira Bai on 2-10-72. Prior to this a family settlement between Sukhdeo Prasad and the petitioner was executed before the Notary public on 30-9-69. Thereafter on 21-7-71 names of the petitioners mutated in the revenue record according to the family statement regarding Bhumidhari. There­after consolidation operation was started and the family settlement dated 30-9-69 was approved in consolidation proceeding on 10-10-75. Thereafter in the year 1978 notice under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) was issued against Sukhdeo Prasad under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Thereafter vide judgement and order dated 27-4-78 the prescribed authority declared 179 Bigha 9 Biswa land as surplus with Sukhdeo Prasad. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Dis­trict Judge, Banda which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2-8-79 directing the prescribed authority to issue fresh notice according to law to the legal heirs of the deceased tenure-holder and to deter­mine surplus land, if any, according to law. Thereafter the prescribed authority issued fresh notice to the petitioners on 6-8-83. Thereafter the petitioners were directed to produce their evidence on 21-9-84. But on that date the prescribed authority was not holding the Court and was absent and on 5-10-84 the prescribed authority held that Court and took up the case of the petitioners and closed the evidence and fixed for 12-10-84 for arguments judgment and on that date again the prescribed authority given ex-pane judgment repeat­ing his earlier judgment dated 27-4-78 which was set aside in appeal. Thereafter on 19-10-84 the petitioners filed applica­tion for recalling of the order dated 12-10-84, but the same was rejected. Even no counter affidavit was filed. Thereafter an appeal was filed which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 75/1984 before the District Judge which was allowed partly and the case was remanded for deciding the nature of the plots whether irrigated or not according to the provisions of the Sec­tion 4-Aof the Act.
(3.) AGAINST this judgment and order as well as against the order of the prescribed authority dated 12-10-84 in Case No. 55, this writ petition has been filed.;