Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 30.10.1987 and 18.1.1991 passed by the prescribed authority, respondent No. 1 and the Additional Commissioner (Administration), respondent No. 2 declaring the land of the petitioners as surplus in proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute in the present writ petition relates to Khata No. 71 measuring 3.94 acres, situate in village Pipraich district Mahrajganj, belonging to the petitioners. Brief facts relating to this case are that on the basis of family settlement arrived at in the year 1940, the disputed land of village Pipraich exclusively fell in the share of Laxmi Shankar Pandey. Ram Jas Pandey had three sons, namely, Laxmi Shankar Pandey, Brahma Shankar Pandey and Satish Shankar Pandey. The petitioners in this writ petition are all sons of Laxmi Shankar Pandey, whereas the sons of Brahma Shankar Pandey are Markandey Pandey and Chandra Maul Pandey. In the family settlement arrived at between the family members in the year 1940, the land of village Pipraich which included the disputed plot, fell in the share of Laxmi Shankar Pandey. It has further been contended that in a suit filed under Section 229B/176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, vide order dated 10.1.1973 passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties to the family settlement, the petitioners were declared to be the sole Bhumidhars of the land in village Pipraich. Accordingly, necessary entries were made in the relevant revenue records and the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Khatauni. After the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'), came into force, notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to Markandey Pandey on 23.3.1981. Pursuant to the said notice, the prescribed authority declared an area of 15.01 acres of land as surplus in the case of Markandey Pandey, in which the disputed land of the petitioners, i.e., of Khata No. 71 of village Pipraich measuring 3.94 acres was also included as a part of the land of Markandey Pandey. Although the petitioners were not parties before the prescribed authority in the case in which notice dated 21.3.1981 was issued to Markandey Pandey, but since their land had also been declared as surplus, treating it to be the land of Markandey Pandey, the petitioners filed an appeal before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. The appellate authority allowed the appeal of the petitioners and remanded the case for fresh decision with the observation that documents filed by the appellant from the file of Chandra Maul Pandey (real brother of Markandey Pandey) which had been admitted, may be considered. Further, the papers relating to the family settlement as well as the order dated 10.1.1973 passed in the suit under Section 229B/176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as also the record of the consolidation proceedings, were directed to be considered, as the plots belonging to the petitioners could not have been taken as excess in the holding of Markandey Pandey.
(3.) AFTER the remand of the case, the prescribed authority, vide its order dated 30.10.1987 again held the disputed plots to be of Markandey Pandey by merely saying that the petitioners as well as Markandey Pandey both belong to the same family and presuming that the share of their fathers, Laxmi Shankar Pandey and Brahma Shankar Pandey, both would be half and half. The family settlement of 1940 and the order dated 10.1.1973 passed in the revenue suit had not been considered by the prescribed authority. The three main issues were decided in a cursory manner without considering any evidence on record, specially the documents which had been directed to be considered by the appellate authority in its judgment dated 5.2.1982 while remanding the case. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 18.1.1991. Hence, this writ petition.;