ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS under section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling Land Hold­ings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the re­corded tenure holder culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21st October, 1982, whereunder 8.55 acre land was declared as surplus. An applica­tion was made for recall of the said order. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 1st March, 1983 recalled the exparte order. Thereafter the file was transferred to the Court of Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi. The Chief Revenue Officer after consider­ing the objections raised and evidence led by the parties vide order dated 10th May, 1989 declared that petitioner had 6-98-1/2 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Relevant plots to be taken as surplus land were also mentioned in the order itself. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 13 of the Act, 1960 before the Commissioner, Varanasi Divi­sion, Varanasi being Ceiling Appeal No. 1/5 of 1989. The appeal has been dismissed under the order of the Additional Com­missioner (Administration) dated 12th February, 1990. Hence the present writ peti­tion. Before this Court following con­tentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner: (a) Sale-deeds executed between 1978-1981, which are 20 in number could not have been ignored by the Pre­scribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority as the same were bona fide transactions and the land covered by the said sale-deeds was liable to be excluded from the holding of the recorded tenure holder. (b) Since the land was transferred prior to the issuance of the notice under section 10 (2) of Act, 1960, the recorded tenure holder was entitled to the land so transferred being excluded from his holding in view of section 5 (6) (1) (b) of Act, 1960. He therefore, submits that the impugned orders to the contrary are legally not sustainable. (c) Land of village Ramna was not ir­rigated and that there was absolutely no material on record, which could establish that the land of the said village could be treated as ir­rigated. (d) Similarly in respect of the land of village Nagava, it was contended that it was situated at the bed of the river and therefore, such land which was commonly known as Dariya Bund, could not be treated as the land fit for agriculture and had to be excluded from the hold­ing of the recorded tenure holder. (e) It is contended that the land situate in village Bhagwanpur was wronglv freated as irrigated when from the records it was established that the crops of marigold flower had been grown thereon.
(3.) IN any view of the matter it is contended that in respect of the land of aforesaid three villages, namely, Ramna, Nagava and Bhagwanpur, there has been complete non-consideration of the condi­tions provided for under section 4-A of the Act, 1960 for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the land is irrigated or not. He therefore, submits that the impugned or­ders cannot be legally sustained.;