ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) PROCEEDINGS under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner culminating into an order dated 22.6.1976 whereby 16.57 acres in terms of irrigated land was declared sur­plus. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 933 of 1976 against the said order. The appeal was allowed on 30.11.1981 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the tenure holders to file objection as well as to the other persons concerned. On remand after carrying out the directions issued by the Appellate Court, the Pre­scribed Authority vide order dated 6.12.1985 again declared 16.57 acres of irri­gated land as surplus. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority, two ap­peals were preferred bearing Nos. 161/222/194/6 of 1985-86 and 2/223/195/116-118 of 1985-86. Both the appeals have been dismissed under the impugned order dated 13.4.1988 by the Additional Commissioner. It is against these two orders that the pres­ent writ petition has been filed.
(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the appeal was fixed for hearing before the Appellate Authority on 25.3.1988. A request was made for ad­journment on the ground that the Counsels were on strike. The request according to the petitioner was rejected and thereafter on 1.4.1988 judgment was reserved. It has been stated to paragraph 9 that neither on 25.3.1988 nor on 1.4.1988, the records of the case were called for from the Prescribed Authority and in fact the records have been summoned only on 6.4.1988. The appeal has been finally dismissed on 13.4.1988. On merits it is submitted that both the authori­ties have committed an illegality in treating the land as irrigated land inasmuch as there is no finding that two crops were ever grown over the plot in question and there­fore, in the absence of any such finding having been recorded the land could not be treated to be irrigated. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Murli and others v. Civil Judge, Jalaun at Oral and others decided on 29th September, 1972 (C.M.W.P. No. 1095 of 1975). It is stated that on 27.5.1959 plot No. 214 area 0.49 acres was bonafidely sold to Ram Singh and Gulab Singh even then the transferred land has been taken into account for determining the ceiling limits. The petitioner had executed a gift deed, dated 3.9.1971 in favour of Smt. Mithilesh Kumar, who is none other than the daugh­ter of the petitioner. Two gift deeds dated 10.10.1971 were executed in favour of Laxmi Narain Jee Maharaj and Harpal Singh S/O Hira Singh. Plot No. 269/1 was recorded as 'Khaliyan' and Plot No. 298 as 'Shamshan'. Lastly, it is stated that the benefit of reduction in area because of con­solidation operations had not been granted to the petitioner. Such reduction had taken place subsequent to the issuance of the no­tice under section 10(2).
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.;