M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) Both these petitions are connected. They arise out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. Smt. Lakshmi Devi who is the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 5834 of 1978 was treated as the tenure-holder and a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to her. Objections were also filed by one Ravindra Kumar who is the transferee from the aforesaid tenure-holder. Ravindra Kumar is the petitioner in the other connected Writ Petn. No. 6823 of 1978. The said objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 26th June, 1976, a true copy whereof is Annexure I to the petition. Thereafter, the said tenure-holder Smt. Lakshmi Devi and the said Ravindra Kumar filed two separate appeals and both of them were decided by one common judgment dated 22nd April, 1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure II to the petition. Now the said Smt. Lakshmi Devi and the said Ravindra Kumar have come to this Court in the said two separate but connected writ petitions. In support thereof, I have heard Sri R. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned standing counsel has made his submissions.
(3.) In the petition of Ravindra Kumar only one contention is involved. It relates to a sale deed dated 12th. Jan., 1970 which was ignored by the authorities below. This sale deed was executed by the said tenure-holder Smt. Lakshmi Devi in favour of Ravindra Kumar. In the other petition, besides restating the aforesaid contention, which is common to both the petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised two more contentions. In other words there are two additional contentions which are involved in the petition of Smt. Lakshmi Devi. These two contentions are : (1) That some land was wrongly treated as irrigated land and the same should have been treated as un-irrigated. (2) That Plot No. 27 was wrongly not treated as grove.;