Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated against the petitioners culminating in an order dated 28.6.1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority where under 15.08 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus.
(2.) NOT being satisfied, the tenure holder filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the District Judge for decision afresh vide Judgment and order dated 11.7.1979. The District Judge on remand vide order dated 11.1.1983 directed that the tenure holder may be provided benefits in the matter of determination of ceiling limits in respect of following: (a) Two hectare land being provided for the third major son. (b) 13.13 acres of land which was declared as irrigated to be treated as single crop land. (c) 0.11 acres of land of plot No. 712 which has been used for constructing the road be similarly deducted from the total land holding. The order of the Appellate Authority was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.7.1979 maintained the remand order. Accordingly, the Prescribed Authority redetermined the ceiling limits vide order dated 30.7.1983. Benefit of (a) 4.94 acres of land towards third major son of the petitioner (b) 4.30 acres of land because of the same being treated as single crop (qua the plots earlier treated as irrigated land) in terms of the order of the Appellate Court and lastly (c) 11 acres of per the land used for road was excluded. The Prescribed Authority accordingly deducting the 9.43 acres of land from the earlier surplus area declared as i.e. 15.0 acres and declared 5.65 acres of irrigated as surplus with the petitioner. The order of the Prescribed Authority was subjected to challenge by way of an appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi being Appeal N. 96/237/84/36/277 of 1986 -87. Before the Appellate Authority, the only ground pressed by the tenure holder was that he had executed a 'Will' deed in favour of the son on 12.4.1984 and because of the same he may be granted benefit of the land so transferred a plea was raised that he had lost his mental balance and, therefore, he could not understand the import of the order of the District Judge dated 11.1.1983 referred to above.
(3.) THE Additional Commissioner has not accepted both the grounds raised by the appellant in respect of the 'Will' executed on 30.3.1984. It has been held that the same is subsequent to the determination of ceiling limits of the recorded tenure holder and, therefore, is not legally justified. Similarly the plea that the recorded tenure holder could not understand the order dated 11.1.1983 has also not found favour with the appellate authority only. The appellate authority has recorded that necessary benefit in terms of the dated 11.1.1983 has been provided to the recorded tenure holder.;