- (1.) Proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1960) were initiated against one Sujan Singh, Respondent No. 3 culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27.12.1974 wherein certain area of land was declared as surplus.
(2.) Not being satisfied Sujan Singh filed Ceiling Appeal No. 105 of 1975. The appeal was partly allowed under order dated 19.04.1978. It was held that Sujan Singh had 3.14 acres of land as surplus. In terms of the order of the Appellate Authority, the Prescribed Authority specified the plots of land from which surplus land was to be taken possession of. This order also included plot No. 230. At this stage of the proceedings the present Petitioners instituted Suit No. 69 of 1978-79 against Sujan Singh claiming declaration of title over plot No. 230 under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by virtue of their long possession. The said suit has been decreed in the year 1979. The suit was contested by Sujan Singh. Amongst others it was specifically stated in the written statement that the land in question was declared as surplus in ceiling proceedings. Despite the aforesaid, the Court concerned proceeded to decree the suit and directed that the name of the Petitioners may be recorded over plot No. 230 total area 16 Bighas and that necessary correction be made in ceiling form No. 4-A. The name of Bhajan Singh and Sujan Singh be deleted and the name of the Petitioners be recorded over plot No. 230. On the strength of such a declaration obtained by the Petitioners, they filed objections before the Prescribed Authority. The objection so raised have been rejected by the Prescribed Authority under the order dated 30.8.1982. Not being satisfied, the Petitioners filed an Appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration of the objections along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) On demand the Prescribed Authority again rejected the objections vide order dated 28.2.1984. Not being satisfied the Petitioners filed an appeal which has also been dismissed. Hence this petition.;