R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard 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 of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.10.1991 passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers under Section 38 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act l961, for short the Act.
(3.) It appears that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued by the Prescribed Authority to the respondent No. 1 calling upon him as to why the land out of his holding specified in the notice be not declared as surplus as according to the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 1 was holding the land in excess of prescribed limit by the Act. After service1 of the notice upon him, the respondent No. 1 filed his objection claiming that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared surplus as he was not holding any land in excess of his statutory limit. On .he basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as thirteen issues were framed by the Prescribed Authority. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases, the Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was entitled to only 18.02 acres land and an area measuring 21 bighas, 12 biswas 3 biswansi was liable to be declared as surplus land by its judgment and order dated 28.1.1988. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, two appeals were filed, i.e., Appeal No. 39 of 1986-87 by the petitioner - the State Government and Appeal No. 53/9 of 1990 by the respondent No. 1. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and after going through the material on the record, allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It was held that no land out of the holding of respondent No. 1 was liable to be declared as surplus pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act because the entire land held by the petitioner cannot be treated as irrigated land and that the petitioner was also entitled to four hectares additional land for his two adult sons. Thus, according to him, he was entitled to six hectares more land. According to the Appellate Authority, after deducting said land there remained no land to be declared as surplus land.;