- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE land which is subject matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 14648 of 1995 is also in dispute in Writ Petition No. 16578 of 1996. THErefore, after hearing the arguments in Writ Petition No. 14648 of 1995 and as prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the same was directed to be connected with Writ Petition No. 16578 of 1996, in which judgment was reserved. Questions of law and facts involved in both these petitions are also the same, therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 16578 of 1996 shall be leading case. 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 order dated 27-12-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring 338. 50 acres out of the land in dispute as surplus and the order dated 27-3-1996 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal in the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act'. The Writ Petition No. 14648 of1995 has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 5-5-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the Prescribed Authority issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act in the year 1974 to the petitioner to show- cause as to why the land mentioned in the notice be not declared as surplus. In the meanwhile, Act was amended vide U. P. Act No. II of 1975 and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the aforesaid notice stood abated. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act to the petitioner on 8-6-1996. Said notice was not served upon the petitioner but the Prescribed Authority without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, proceeded ex-parte and vide its order dated 24-6- 1976 declared according to his choice an area as surplus land. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the case by its judgment and order dated 28-8-1977 for decision afresh. Then the petitioner filed a detailed objection on 26-9-1977, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, contending that according to the provisions of the Act, notice could not be issued to the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute, therefore, the notice was liable to be discharged. In the meanwhile, one Yash Kumar Jain applied for his impleadment in the proceedings on account of interim stay orders obtained by him from this Court and from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the proceeding before respondent No. 3 remained stayed till 30-7- 1992. Thereafter, another application was filed by the Rural Trust Private Limited, which also obtained stay orders which remained operative till 13-10- 1995. One Smt. Chaman Rani Jain also filed similar application, which was rejected and her appeal was also dismissed. It is not necessary to give the details of the said litigation. It would suffice to state that after the application of the aforesaid persons were disposed of finally, the Prescribed Authority took up the matter and without following the procedure prescribed under the law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 27-12-1995 again declared an area measuring 338. 50 acres out of the land in dispute as surplus simply observing that the petitioner was not interested in decision of the case on merits, as he was unnecessary prolonging the litigation, although the petitioner had absolutely no concern with the aforesaid litigation. The petitioner as soon as came to know about the said order, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 16-1- 1996. The Appellate Authority also acted arbitrarily and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 27-3-1996 without dealing with the points raised before it, hence the present petition.
(3.) ON this petition, notices were issued to the respondents and time was also granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit which was filed and in reply of which rejoinder-affidavit was also filed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit in reply of which learned Standing Counsel filed the supplementary counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed supplementary rejoinder-affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority has decided the case ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Act and that the Appellate authority has also acted illegally arbitrarily in affirming the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, that the petitioner was a private limited company and according to the respondent No. 1, it was a firm. In either case, it was urged that procedure prescribed under sub- section (4) of Section 5 of the Act for determination of the ceiling area had to be followed, which was admittedly not followed. Therefore,the orders passed by the authorities below were illegal. It was urged that the entire land covered by the aforesaid notice was grove land, the authorities below acted illegally in treating the same as irrigated land and that the land owned by the Rural Trust Private Limited was illegally clubbed with the land in dispute in respect of which, according to him, ceiling proceedings were going on before the Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, District Nainital and the Trust also filed Writ Petition No. 14648 of 1995, which is connected with this petition. It was urged that the land situated within the municipal limits of Bijnor, was also illegally included in the land in dispute. Therefore, according to him, the impugned orders were illegal and the writ petition was liable to be allowed.;