M.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner had been proceeded against in the earlier ceiling proceedings and the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 3rd July, 1976 set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and discharged the Notice which had been issued to the petitioner under S. 10 (2) of the Act in the said proceedings. This is clear from a true copy of the said judgment of the Appellate Court which is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority has stated in its order dated 6-2-1978 (Annexure 2) that the said fresh notice was issued under S. 29 of the Act. The Appellate Court, however, has stated in its judgment dated 29-4-1978 (Annexure 3) that the notice was issued under S. 13-A of the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that the second notice issued to the petitioner was sought to be justified either under S. 29 of the Act or under S. 13-A of the Act.
(3.) Sri S. C. Khare, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended before me that such notice could not be issued in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has placed reliance on Mahendrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (1977 All WC 460) : (AIR 1978 NOC 6) . On the other hand, the learned standing counsel has contended that it was a case of sheer omission inasmuch as the own documents of the petitioner, namely, the gift-deed stated the age of the third son Upendra Singh to be 13 years at the time when the said document was executed i.e. on 15th Dec., 1969. Accordingly, on 8-6-1973 Upendra Singh was still a minor and, therefore, his l/3rd share in the gift-deed was liable to be clubbed with the holding of the petitioner. The learned counsel contended that such an error could be corrected by a proceeding under S. 13-A of the Act.;