Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions are directed against the same order of the Appellate Authority. They have been clubbed and heard together. Writ Petition No. 832 of 1984 has been made the leading case. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the petitioners of the leading case being Case No. 436 of 1974 culminated in an order dated 31st March, 1982 wherein 421.47 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioners filed appeal No. 33 of 1982, which was connected with appeal No. 34 of 1982. Both the appeals have been dismissed under common order of the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Pilibhit dated 29th September, 1983. It is against these two orders that the present writ petitions have been filed. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended as follows: (i) In the notice issued to the petitioner land belonging to Kishwar Jahan Begum was included as the holding of the petitioner. Kishwar Jahan Begum was the mother of the petitioner against whom independent proceedings under section 10(2) of Act, 1960 were initiated being case No. 430 of 1974. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 15th March, 1975 allowed the objections raised by Kishwar Jahan in part and ultimately declared that she had 24.44 acres of land as surplus. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority, Kishwar Jahan Begum filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Kishwar Jahan Begum expired i.e., in October, 1975. Therefore, the appeal filed by her abated and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15th March, 1975 qua the land held by Kishwar Jahan Begum became final. (ii) In order to keep the record straight, it may be noticed that against the notice under section 10(2) of Act, 1960 petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1975 before the High Court, wherein an interim stay order was granted. The writ petition was finally decided on 7th December, 1977 in between Kishwar Jahan Begum expired, therefore, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioners including the holding of Kishwar Jahan, which had been inherited by the petitioners. (iii) According to the petitioner in proceedings initiated against Kishwar Jahan, plot No. 277 was held to be an Idgah, plot Nos. 235, 451, 433, 253, 88, 89, 91, 367 and 374 were held to be Grove and plot Nos. 278, 378 and 393 were held to be Abadi and plot No. 290 was held as not the holding of Kishwar Jahan Begum. Similarly reference has also been made to various plots qua which findings were recorded in the proceedings initiated against Kishwar Jahan Begum for the purposes of granting benefit in the matter of determination of her ceiling limits.
(3.) UNDER the order impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Additional District Judge, aforesaid findings which had become final against Kishwar Jahan have been reopened and brushed aside. This according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a patent error of law committed by the authorities. The impugned orders are based on misreading of section 38 -B of Act, 1960. According to the petitioner all such issues, which have been finally determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties in earlier proceedings initiated against Kishwar Jahan Begum cannot be reopened, inasmuch as mere has been no change in law in the matter of determination of the nature of the aforesaid plots and therefore, section 38 -B of Act, 1960 will not apply. Findings recorded in that regard would operate, as binding upon the authorities, even after the holding of Kishwar Jahan is treated to have fallen in the share of the petitioner after her death.;