Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE order which was passed on 20.01.2011 when judgment was reserved is quoted below: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued three points. One is that as the land in dispute was initially 'sir' and 'khudkashta', hence all the sons and grand sons should be treated to be different units and in this regard it has further been argued that earlier lower appellate court had remanded the matter but Prescribed Authority did not consider the said point. The other argument is that petitioners had claimed exemption of certain land as it was filled up with water/ sand, however in this regard complete relief was not granted and now the dispute remains in respect of Plots No. 1255/3, 1257/7,1258/5, 270/40, 270/59, 270/70 and 270/71. It has further been argued in the writ petition filed by Bhupendra Singh that number of family members has wrongly been calculated. The authorities below decided that the family consisted of only 6 persons instead of 7 persons as asserted by petitioner. In the writ petition of Satyendra Singh, the argument is that family consisted of 6 persons, however authorities below wrongly decided that the family consisted of only 5 persons instead of 6 persons. Judgment reserved. These very points (and none else) were raised before the lower appellate court.
(3.) THESE writ petitions arise out of ceiling proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. All these writ petitions are directed against judgment and order dated 14.11.1984 passed by IVth A.D.J. Allahabad in seven ceiling appeals.;