Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr.Mod. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Adil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 10th of January, 2007, passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby his irrigated land measuring 6.980 hectare has been declared as surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as also the order dated 22nd of May, 2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in appeal, whereby the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been upheld.
(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act on 27th of September, 2004 by clubbing the land of Shishir Datt, Smt.Rashmi Tripathi, Parmeshwar Datt, Smita Pandey, Devendra Kaur, daughter of Prahlad Singh. He filed objection against the notice on 4th of January, 2005 stating therein that Shishir Datt, who is his son being a major had purchased the plot No.403, measuring areas 4.913 hectare through two registered sale deeds dated 22.11.2001 and 28.11.2001 from Parmeshwar Datt, who was holding the land within the ceiling limit. Though Mr.Shishir Datt is his son, but the petitioner is not in possession over the land acquired by him independently. So far as the land of Smt. Smita Pandey opposite party No.4 is concerned, she acquired the land through the Will deed executed by Smt. Vimla Pandey, her grant mother measuring 3.335 hectare and her name has been recorded in the revenue record. She does not belong to the petitioner's family as defined under the Act, hence her holdings cannot be clubbed with the petitioner's holding. Similarly the holding of Smt. Rashmi Tripathi comprising of plot No.404 and 404-Kha, which is grove is in her possession and was allotted to her during consolidation operation. Plot No.404-Kha was chak out being grove, therefore, the same cannot be clubbed with the petitioner's holding. It was also pleaded that plot No.394, measuring 1.870 hectare is holding of Ram Krishna Datt, which also cannot be clubbed with the petitioner's holding as he is not the family member of the petitioner. He further submitted that the holdings of Kulveer Singh, Gurnam Singh and Buta Singh also could not be clubbed with the petitioner's holding.;