R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 3.8.1981 (Annexure-8) and 5.10.1981 (Annexure-9) passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively and also for quashing the orders dated 23.4.1979 and 6.10.1979 passed by the said authorities. Prayer for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute, has also been made.
(3.) For the purposes of the decision of this case, it is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail. It would suffice to state that the land in question was owned by respondent No. 4, Govardhan Prasad upon whom a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', was served calling upon him to show cause as to why the area measuring 1.27 acres out of his holdings be not declared as surplus. The tenure-holder contested the case upto the High Court but ultimately lost. So far as the declaration of 1.27 acres of land as surplus land is concerned, the High Court, however, permitted the respondent No. 4 to give his choice and remanded the case to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority asked the respondent No. 4 for giving his choice. Respondent No. 4 expressed his choice on the basis of which plots were declared as surplus land. One of plots mentioned by him and declared as surplus was 1588 measuring 2 bighas 7 Biswas besides other plots.When the aforesaid plot was declared as surplus, an application was made by the tenure-holder himself that plot No. 1588 be not declared as surplus and instead of the said plot, some other land should be declared as surplus, which was specified by him in the said application. The application filed by respondent No. 4 was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed on 7.3.1980. Thereafter, petitioner came into picture and it was on 15.4.1980 that an application was filed by the petitioner pleading that plot in dispute was purchased by him on 7.8.1975 from respondent No. 5 by means of a registered sale deed. The said plot was, therefore, not liable to be declared as surplus. On the said application, the Prescribed Authority directed that the petitioner's plot be excluded from the surplus land if possession over the same was not taken by the State and a report of the Tehsildar was sent for. In pursuance of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the Tehsildar reported that possession over the plot in dispute was already taken on 25.4.1981. Thereafter, petitioner filed another application on 29.4.1981 again praying not to declare the plot in dispute as surplus. The said application was also dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 5.10.1981. Hence, the present petition.;