M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) -These four petitions arise out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these. There are two brothers Ram Prasad Dubey and Rajdeo Dubey. They are real brothers and co-tenure-holders. The notices under Section 10 (2) of the Act were separately issued to each of them and they filed objections. The Prescribed Authority, by his two separate orders both dated 31-12-1977, decided the objections. A true copy of the order passed in the case of Ram Prasad Dubey is Annexure 3 to his petition (No. 7673 of 1978); a true copy of the order passed in the case of Rajdeo Dubey is Annexure 3 to his petition (No. 7672 of 1978). Thereafter, four appeals were filed. Ceiling Appeal No. 16 of 1978 was filed by the said Rajdeo Dubey and it was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21-7-1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure 4 to his aforesaid petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record; Ceiling Appeal No. 17 of 1978 was filed by the said Ram Prasad Dubey; Ceiling Appeal No. 18 of 1978 was filed by Hanumanji, and Ceiling Appeal No. 19 of 1979 was filed by Bholanath and 10 others, who claimed that their lands were wrongly included in the holdings of the said tenure holders. Ceiling Appeals Nos. 17 and 18 of 1978 were decided by the appellate court by one common judgment dated 21-7-1978, a true copy and a certified copy whereof are on the record in the aforesaid petition of Ram Prasad Dubey (Writ Petition No. 7673 of 1978); Ceiling Appeal No. 19 of 1978 Bhola Nath and 10 others v. U. P. State and others was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21-7-1978 a true copy and a certified copy whereof are on the record and marked Annexure 3 to the writ petition of Bhola Nath and others (Writ Petition No. 9321 of 1978).
(3.) Now the petitioners have come up in these four separate writ petitions before this Court and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. As common questions arise in these four writ petitions. Therefore, they are being disposed of by one common judgment.;