M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and she filed objections on 24-6-1976. The issues were framed by the Prescribed Authority on the same date namely on 24-6-1976, and, thereafter, 26-6-76 was fixed for evidence. On 26-6-1976 an application was moved for adjournment. The said application was rejected and the case was fixed for orders on 29-6-1976. The order was passed on 29-6-1976 and the true copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 30th March, 1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure 9 to the petition. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri 11. II. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made liis submissions.
(3.) The appellate court held the said application for adjournment to be mala fide and lacking good grounds. Normally, this Court in its limited jurisdiction in a writ petition does not enter into the correctness of such orders passed by the court below, however, it should be seen that in the instant case, really no opportunity was given to the tenure-holder in support of her objections. Section 12 of the Act clearly lays down that the Prescribed Authority shall, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence, decide the objections. In the instant case, really no opportunity was given to the petitioner in view of the fact that the Prescribed Authority fixed dates in such manner that it was impossible for the petitioner to lead evidence in support of her objections. 1 have already stated above that objections were filed on 24-6-1976 and the Prescribed Authority framed the issues on that very day and thereafter fixed the case for recording of the evidence on 26-6-1976 i. e. only two days after the framing of the issues. Obviously, it is not a case of real opportunity being given to the tenure-holder but a mere eye-wash.;