Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) INSPITE of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of contesting Respondents No. 1 to 4.
(2.) HEARD learned standing counsel for the Petitioner. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for determination of surplus land under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. Respondent No. 2 is wife of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are their sons. They all jointly held 59 bigha, 5 biswa and 19 biswancies agricultural land [55 - 8(or 3) - 19 in terms of irrigated land as per C.L.H. form 3 -A, photo copy of which is Annexure VI to the writ petition]. Prescribed authority under Ceiling Act. S.D.O. Khurja, District Bijnor through order dated 26.08.1976 held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to hold only 52 bighas, 10 biswas and 13 biswancies land and declared 2 bighas, 12 biswas and 6 biswancies land as surplus land. The calculation appears to be wrong as after deducting 52 -10 -13 from 55 -8 -19 the figure which is arrived at is 2 -18 -6 and not 2 -12 -6 (or there is some typing error in Annexure -I copy of judgment dated 26.08.1976). The order was ex party as inspite of service no one had appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is stated in para 4 of the writ petition that possession over the declared surplus land was taken on 13.10.1976. After more than 10 years Respondent No. 2, Smt. Shanti Devi filed an application under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act on 31.01.1987 for recalling the ex parte judgment and order dated 26.08.1976. The application was rejected on 22.06.1988 (para 5 of the writ petition). Thereafter, Respondent No. 3, Surendra Singh filed another restoration application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.08.1976 which was allowed by the D.M. on 05.10.1989, earlier ex party order dated 26.08.1976 was set aside and it was directed that the matter would be heard again on merit. Thereafter, notice was issued to all the tenure holders and all the other concerned persons. However, same judgment was again passed by the Prescribed authority on 31.3.1992 after hearing the parties and again an area of 2 bighas 12 biswsas and 6 biswancies was declared as surplus land to be taken out from plot No. 3236/2. The number of said plot was corrected as 32226/2 by order dated 18.05.1992 passed by the Prescribed authority. However, the said judgment of the prescribed authority was reversed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut, Division -Meerut through judgment dated 23.07.1992 passed in appeal No. 11 of 1991 -92 Hiri Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. which has been challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) THE lower appellate court based its judgment solely upon C.L.H. form 3 A and C. Copy of C.L.H. Form 3A is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The appellate court held that from the said forms itself it was clear that Respondent No. 1 to 4 did not possess any surplus land and in the form area of grove (5 -12 -0) had been added twice. Neither any such point was taken by the Respondent No. 4 before the Prescribed Authority nor the point is substantiated by Annexure - VI. The appellate court further mentioned that 5 -12 -0 grove land is equivalent to 3 -7 -4 irrigated land. This is also wrong. The ratio between the two ought to be 1:2.5 hence 5 -12 -0 grove land comes to about 2 -5 -0 irrigated land. The appellate court mentioned that according to the C.L.H. Forms 49 -14 -9 land of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was actually irrigated. It is also wrong as in Annexure -6 it is shown to be 52 -1 -15.;