Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kapil Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Legal Heirs and Legal representatives of Respondent No. 4, deceased, have been represented by Sri M.E. Khan.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.11.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 23.8.1984, passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act), who has dismissed the petitioners/tenureholders' objections filed under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act. The land in dispute is agricultural land situate in Village Barithana, District Unnao. As per learned Counsel for the petitioners, on 3.1.1981, the petitioner No. 1, namely, Gyas Ahmad, the petitioner No. 1 had filed objections under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act, responding to the notice received by him from the office of the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act. He has submitted in his objections that he was pursuing his studies in Aligarh University and in the year 1981, after completing his studies, he came back to his native town. While he was looking for a suitable job at Kanpur, the petitioner No. 1 learnt that his agricultural land has been clubbed with the holdings of his mother in furtherance of Ceiling proceedings as a result of which a substantial amount of land has been declared as surplus land, although the petitioner No. 1 being a major was holding his own land separately. He was living separately from his mother and other family members. The petitioner No. 1 was never served with any notice issued from the Ceiling Authorities. He was not afforded opportunity of hearing before clubbing his land with that of his mother, Smt. Shakila Khatoon. The holding of his mother, Smt. Shakila Khatoon has also not been calculated correctly. The details of land, Khasra plots and its area etc. have been indicated in Paragraph 2 of this writ petition. There were old groves covering several plots. Several Khasra plots, as indicated in Paragraph -3 of the writ petition, recorded in the name of Smt. Shakila Khatoon, situate in the Village Barithana, District Unnao. At the time of commencement of Ceiling proceedings, the Mango groves were 40 years old. The other fruit bearing trees were also available on the other plots which were also in the nature of grove lands. Some plots of land were sold, through registered sale deeds to Smt. Lakshmi, widow of Bhawani and Tekai, Son of Ram Lal. These persons have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the present writ petition, and mutation has also taken place in their favour. The plots sold to these persons, who are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein, could not have been clubbed with that of the petitioners' holdings.
(3.) IT was further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that a long drawn litigation took place in the past with the petitioners' step brother, Qayamuddin, who has been declared holder of 1/5th share in the family property including the agricultural land. Qayamuddin has filed a separate objection, being an independent landholder. His land cannot be clubbed with that of the petitioners' holdings. The petitioners' objections were arbitrarily dismissed on 31.7.1982. An Appeal has been preferred under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act before the District Judge, Unnao, which was registered as C.M. Appeal No. 43 of 1982. The learned Appellate Authority, that is, Civil Judge, Unnao has held that on one hand, the Prescribed Authority had not afforded opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence to the petitioners and on the other hand, the said Authority had held that no evidence had been adduced by the appellant. The findings was self -contradictory and material irregularity had been committed by the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate court had further held that since the mother of the appellant, Smt. Shakila Khatoon had not disclosed any right or interest of the petitioner in respect of the land held by her, then it would not take away the right of her son, that is, the petitioner No. 1. It was also held that on the basis of some presumption and conjunctures it could not be said that the objections preferred by the petitioners were time barred. The matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity of hearing and also to adduce evidence in accordance with law. The matter again came up before the Prescribed Authority. The application seeking spot inspection was made by the petitioners to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority himself went on the site for spot inspection, although several dates were fixed by him on which dates he did not visit the site. Later on , the Prescribed Authority had fixed 24.3.1984 for carrying out spot inspection, but instead of 24.3.1984, he had carried out spot inspection ex parte in the absence of the petitioners on 10.3.1984, that is, two weeks earlier to the date fixed by him.;