Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for declaration of surplus land under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. Petitioner has got land in two districts i.e. Jalaun and Hamirpur. The agricultural land of one Govind Das was clubbed with that of the Petitioner. He raised objections against that. However, his objections were rejected and that issue became final and is not subjudice in this writ petition. The prescribed authority through order dated 27.6.1976 declared 17.52 acres of irrigated land as surplus land with the Petitioner. Against the said order Petitioner filed appeal No. 1140 of 1978. The District Judge, Jalaun at Orai allowed the appeal on 31.8.1978 in part and matter was remanded to the Prescribed authority. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Against the said order Petitioner filed writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on 6.12.1978 (para -8 of the writ petition). Thereafter it is stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this writ petition that against the judgment dated 6.12.1978 earlier given by this Court Petitioner filed Writ petition before the Supreme Court (probably Special leave petition might have been filed). In para -10 of the writ petition it is stated that Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition on 14.1.1981. Thereafter, Prescribed authority pursuant to the judgment of the appellate court dated 31.8.1978 (Annexure -1 to this writ petition) decided the matter on 25.11.1981 declaring 17.38 acres of agricultural land in terms of irrigated land as surplus land with the Petitioner. Choice of the Petitioner was also accepted as stated in para ¬12 of this writ petition. After few days of the said judgment of the Prescribed authority i.e. on 4.12.1981, Petitioner filed an application before the Prescribed authority seeking benefit of reduction of area in consolidation proceedings. The said application was given under Section 13 -A of the Act. The Prescribed authority, Kaunch/Sub Divisional Officer through order dated 7.6.1982 rejected the application dated 4.12.1981 contained in Annexure -3 to the writ petition only on the ground that reduction in area in consolidation proceedings had taken place prior to 25.11.1981 when the matter was earlier decided by it and the applicant should have raised the said plea at that stage. Against the order dated 7.6.1982, Petitioner filed Misc. Civil (Ceiling) Appeal No. 46 of 1982. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity), Jalaun at Orai dismissed the appeal on 12.4.1984 hence this writ petition. The Additional District Judge held that the case of the tenure holder was that there had been a reduction of 4.03 acres in consolidation proceedings. The figure 4.03 acres given in the judgment of the appellate court appears to be wrong. It ought to be 4.84 acres as mentioned in para -13 and 14 of the writ petition. In para -3 of the judgment by the appellate court it is mentioned that it was not stated by the Petitioner that when consolidation took place in the village in question and when the consolidation proceedings were over. The other reason given in the said para is that: Besides it is well settled law and if reduction in consolidation area takes place after that the ceiling proceedings are over, the tenure holder cannot get benefit of the reduction in consolidation proceedings.
(3.) HOWEVER , neither the Prescribed authority nor the appellate court dis -believed the version that in -fact reduction in area had taken place during consolidation proceedings. Unfortunately, copy of the application filed by the Petitioner before the Prescribed authority has not been annexed alongwith this writ petition. In reply to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition the only thing which has been stated in para -7 of the counter affidavit filed by Naib Tehsildar (Ceiling), Jalaun at Orai on behalf of State Respondents is as follows: 7. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition it is submitted that the consolidation proceedings ended prior to the finalize of the case under ceiling Act as such the question was rightly decided by the appellate authority. In my opinion both the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the application. As far as the delay aspect is concerned, it has been held that benefit of reduction in area in consolidation proceedings can be given even after finalization of proceedings but before delivery of possession. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard has cited the following authorities: 1. Krishna Gopal v. District Judge, 2002 (93) R.D. 210 2. Devendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. : 2004(1)AWC 444 3. Smt. Ganeshi Devi v. IInd A.D.J., Jhansi : 2005 (3) AWC 2982 4. Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. : 2007(103) RD 169;