R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) These five writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (for short "the Act") and are directed against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeals filed by the contesting respondent and setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) In all these petitions, common questions of law and fact were involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 23641 of 1988 shall be the leading case.
(3.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are that it was on 24.6.1974, the Prescribed Authority issued notice to the petitioner through its trustees under Section 10 (2) of the Act as no return was filed in reply of general notice under Section 9 of the Act. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed objection mainly claiming that the land in dispute was owned by a public trust, namely. Lady Parassan Kaur Charitable Trust, (in short the trust), the whole income of which was utilised for charitable purposes of the said trust. The same was, therefore, liable to be exempted from the operation of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. After going through the evidence which was on record, the Prescribed Authority held that the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was bad in law, land in dispute was the property of a charitable trust. After recording the findings on the relevant issues in favour of the petitioner, the proceedings were dropped by judgment and order dated 12.1.1968. Against the said judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, no appeal was filed by the State. Same, therefore, became final between the parties and operates as res judicata. The same position existed till date, hence the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in the said judgment were final. From a reading of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, it is evident that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was quite valid, therefore, fresh proceedings could not be initiated. After several years, the Prescribed Authority again issued another notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act against the petitioner on the basis of which two cases. i.e., 28/9 and 17/18, were registered. The petitioner on receipt of the notice filed objection mainly pleading that judgment and order dated 12.1.1968 passed by the Prescribed Authority became final, by which the land in dispute was exempted from the operation of the Act, therefore, the notice dated 24.6.1974 was illegal. It was also urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fresh notice could be issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Parties in support of their cases filed evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority held that the income of the land in dispute was still being utilised only for charitable purposes. Having recorded the said findings, the proceedings were dropped by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 25.10.1985. Challenging the validity of the said order, the State filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the District Judge, Gorakhpur. Ultimately, the said appeal was transferred for disposal to the file of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh by order dated 11.10.1988. In the said judgment, it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 38B of the Act, the order dated 12.1.1968 and findings recorded in it did not operate as res judicata or bar for re-initiation of the proceedings. Here, it may be noticed that the finding that the entire income of the land in dispute was being utilised exclusively for charitable/educational purposes, was not reversed ; but it was held that the provisions of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act had no application in the present case. Having recorded the said finding, appeal filed by the State was allowed by judgment and order dated 11.10.1988. Hence, the present petitions.;