ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS were initiated against the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960') culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19th/27/29 May, 1976, wherein 11.70 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the recorded tenure holder preferred appeal no. 541 of 1976 under Section 13 of Act, 1960 before the District Judge, Hamirpur. The appeal was partly allowed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 31st January, 1977 and it was declared that the petitioner had 6.38 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3864 of 1977. The writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court vide order dated 23rd March, 1979 and the order of the appellate court dated 31st January, 1977 was affirmed. Meaning thereby that the recorded tenure holder was held to have 6.38 acres of irrigated land as surplus. In terms of the order so passed by the Writ Court, proceedings were initiated for taking possession of the surplus land. At this stage, petitioner filed fresh objections stating therein that subsequent to the aforesaid proceedings, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th March, 1982 under Section 10 (2) of Act, 1960, to which objections were filed. An order was passed by the Prescribed Authority recording therein that the recorded tenure holder had 8.95 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order under Section 13 of Act, 1960 being Ceiling Appeal No. 18 of 1985. The appeal was allowed on 15th October, 1985 by the Additional District Judge, Hamirpur and it has been held that the recorded tenure holder did not have any surplus land. Therefore, the question of taking possession of the surplus land as per order dated 31st January, 1977 does not arise. Objection so raised on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order dated 6th March, 1990. It has been held that the possession of the surplus land was required to be taken immediately on conclusion of the ceiling proceedings at the appellate stage in the year 1979. If possession of the surplus land had not been taken, in pursuance thereof, no objection can be taken by the petitioner because of subsequent proceedings initiated in the year 1982, which were misconceived. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent proceedings under Section 10 (2) of Act, 1960 will render the earlier proceedings as abated and no action can be taken in pursuance of earlier order dated 31st January, 1977. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohar Singh and others versus Third Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and Another, passed in Writ Petition No. 2614 of 1977 decided on 29th November, 1978, wherein it was held that once a second notice was issued to the recorded tenure holder with the aid of the provision contained in Section 27 (3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, then the earlier proceedings stood abated.
(3.) FOR appreciating the said plea, the Court may refer to Section 27 (3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (U.P. Ordinance No.3 of 1975), which reads as follows: "27. Transitory provisions.---(1) All proceedings under sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 14 of the principal Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance pending before any Court or authority immediately before the date of such commencement shall abate. (2) Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before January 17, 1975 and the Prescribed Authority is required to redetermine the surplus land under Section 9 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act II of 1975), then notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act XVII of 1973), every appeal under Section 13 of the principal Act or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order on or after January 17, 1975, and pending immediately before the date of commencement of this Ordinance shall abate. (3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may at any time within a period of two years from the commencement of this Ordinance redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Ordinance, notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land. (4) The provisions of Section 13 of the principal Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every order redetermining surplus land under sub-section (3) of this section or Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 : Provided that the period of thirty days shall, in the case of an appeal against the order referred to in Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, be computed from the date of such order or the date of commencement of this Ordinance, whichever is later. (5) The provisions of Section 13A of the principal Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every redetermination of surplus land under this section or under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974. (6) Where any tenure-holder has received before June 8, 1973, any compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the principal Act read with the Schedule, as they existed before the commencement of this Ordinance, then notwithstanding the amendments made in the said Chapter and the Schedule by this Ordinance, no tenure-holder shall be liable to refund the whole or part of any such compensation to the State Government." ;