R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 23.11.1984 and 13.2.1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, for short, "the Act".
(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on the enforcement of the Act a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to Sri Raghubir Singh, great grand father of the petitioners calling upon him to show cause as to why an area measuring 4.63 Acres out of his holding be not declared as surplus. On receipt of the notice Raghubir Singh filed objection contending that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus as he was in possession of the land within his ceiling limit. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, Raghubir Singh died leaving behind his two sons, Rameshwar Singh and Surender Singh, who were substituted in his place and they thereafter contested the case. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record by his judgment and order dated 26.11.1974 rejected the objection filed by Raghubir Singh and declared an area measuring 4.63 Acres as surplus out of his holding. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority the sons of Raghubir Singh filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by them was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh. The Prescribed Authority again afforded the parties opportunity of hearing and thereafter again declared an area measuring 4.63 Acres as surplus by his judgment and order dated 27.2.1976. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Rameshwar Singh and another filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed on 24.7.1976. Thereafter, the sons of Raghubir Singh filed Writ Petition No. 2924 of 1978 in this Court. The said writ petition also met the same fate and was dismissed by this Court. The date of dismissal of the writ petition has not been disclosed in the writ petition or the affidavits filed by the parties nor in the orders passed by the authorities below. The orders passed by the authorities below and this Court, noted above, became final.
(3.) The Tehsildar after following the procedure prescribed under the law took possession over the land in dispute on 12.9.1976. Long thereafter Kameshwar Prasad son of Raghubir Singh filed an application under Section 11 (2) on 13.10.1982 contending that the land in dispute was his ancestral sir and khudkast, that he was born before the date of vesting, therefore, he was a co-sharer in the land in dispute. He prayed that he should be impleaded and permitted to file his objections. The application filed by Kameshwar Prasad was apparently highly barred by limitation. In the said application other son of Raghubir Singh, Rameshwar Singh was also not impleaded. In support of his case that the land in dispute was ancestral sir and khudkast, no documentary evidence was filed before the Prescribed Authority. The documentary evidence was also not filed regarding date of birth of Kameshwar Prasad. The Prescribed Authority heard the parties and took the view that the orders passed by the authorities below including the order of the High Court became final. Their validity was also not challenged by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners was disbelieved. It was also held that his claim was barred by limitation and that he was not entitled to inherit the property. Having recorded the said findings the Prescribed Authority dismissed the application by order dated 13.11.1984. Kameshwar Prasad challenging the validity of the said order, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. It was also held that the father of the petitioners was party in the proceedings upto the stage of the High Court. He nowhere raised any objection to the fact that the land in dispute was his ancestral sir and khudkast, therefore, the appellant could not be permitted to raise the said plea particularly in the absence of reliable and admissible evidence in support of the questions involved in the case. The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 13.2.1987. Challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, noted above, the present petition has been filed.;