- (1.) SIBGHAT Ullah Khan, J. - Heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned standing counsel for respondents. Writ Petition No. 19644 of 1985:
(2.) IN this writ petition an Impleadment Application bearing No. 83594 of 2011 has been filed on 15.3.2011 by four persons Raja Ram. Brij Lal, Smt. Rama Devi and Shiv Ram claiming bhumidhari right in land in dispute on the ground that petitioner had transferred the land in question to the father of the applicant No. 3 and other applicants through agreements dated 26. 6. 1952 and 14. 7. 1972. Agricultural land cannot be transferred through agreements. It can be transferred only through registered sale deed. Names of applicants were never recorded in the revenue records. It is further stated in the impleadment application that some family settlement took place on 1. 5. 1974. That is also not registered and it was never filed any where except alongwith the impleadment application filed on 15.3.2011. Impleadment application being utterly frivolous is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the following four points: (i) In the khasras of 1378 fasli to 1380 fasli most of the plots were shown as unirrigated. (ii) Sale deeds of July, 1972 were wrongly ignored. (iii) Family settlement of 1969 was wrongly ignored. (iv) Choice was wrongly ignored. It has also been argued that Section 14 (3) of the Ceiling Act was deleted and hence choice could be given subsequently also.
(3.) IN this writ petition, the only prayer initially made was that respondents might be directed to accept the choice of the petitioner as indicated in Annexure-6 to the writ petition and order of the respondent No. 2 might be quashed to the extent to which it rejected the choice of the petitioner. (However, through amendment application dated 26. 10. 2004 prayer for quashing Annexures-I and II to the writ petition has also been made.) In para 10 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that choice for leaving certain plots as surplus was given in 1980. Date is mentioned as 22, however as far as month is concerned, it is not clear there is overwriting and it appears that typed figure of 10 is changed to 8 by pen. Annexure-III to the writ petition is a typed copy of the said I application in which also the date is I mentioned in the same manner with I similar overwriting. In Para 7 of counter-affidavit it has been stated" that the application for choice was given on 22. 10. 1980 and as possession had already been taken on: 17. 9. 1980. it could not be considered. In the said application, It was mentioned that Prescribed Authority through order dated 13. 8. 1979 declared 48 bighas of petitioner's land as surplus. It was further mentioned in the said application that petitioner had heard. On 8. 10. 1980, that surplus land was to be allotted to Harijans. The application could not therefore be filed in August, 1980. Accordingly, false statement has been made in Para 10 of the writ petition to the effect that application was filed before Prescribed Authority on 22. 8. 1980. The said application is under Section 13A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it raises the question of certain plots being unirrigated also. In para 12 of this writ petition it is mentioned as follows: "That the petitioner is prepared to leave 48 bighas of land which has been declared surplus provided the choice indicated by the petitioner which is enclosed as Annexure-6 to this writ petition is accepted. " ;