(a) The petitioner did not have any major son on the relevant date and, therefore, he was not entitled to the additional benefit of two hectares of land. Issue no. 1 was, therefore, answered against the petitioner. (b) With regard to issue no. 2, it was held that there has been no double entries in the notice issued to the petitioner and that the benefit as claimed by the petitioner in that regard, was misconceived. Issue no. 2 was also answered against the petitioner. (c) So far as the issue no. 3 is concerned which has been pressed before this Court, it has been recorded that Plots No. 25, 29, 33, 233, 234, 279, 292, 910, 27, 700, 732, 944/22 23 and 98 of village Malakapur were within the command area of the canal and, therefore, in terms of Section 4(A), they had to be treated as irrigated land. With regard to Plots No. 722, 725 726, 727, 730 and 286, after referring to khasra in terms of 1378 fasli and 1380 fasli and the number of trees standing on the area of the respective plots, including the crop grown on the aforesaid plots, a conclusive finding has been recorded that the plots were not grove. The petitioner was not entitled to any benefit, as claimed by him in respect of the said plots being grove. - (1.) NO counter affidavit has been filed to the amendment application despite the order dated 22.5.1997. The amendment application is allowed. Substitution application is also allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of
(2.) CEILING on Land Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Act) culminated in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.1.1977 whereby 53.06 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed an appeal inter se 13 of the Act. The appeal was partly allowed vide judgement and order dated 23.12.1977 and the total surplus area with the petitioner was reduced to 36.48 acres. The petitioner was not satisfied even thereafter he, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1660 of 1978. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 20.7.1979 & 14.8.1980 and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority qua decision afresh in terms of the observations made by the High Court. The appellate authority in turn remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 07.07.1985. On remand the Prescribed Authority having regard to the directions framed 3 issues for determination. (a) Whether the petitioner was entitled to two hectares of additional land in respect of one major son or not? (b) Whether the petitioner was entitled to reduction in total area shown to be possessed by him because of double entry of the plots. (c) Whether the determination of the plots being irrigated or not, has been made in accordance with Section 4(A) of the Act, 1960 and whether the petitioner was entitled to certain area as it was grove. As per the order of remand, the Prescribed Authority issued an order for spot inspection to be done by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 31.3.1997. The spot inspection was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the presence of the petitioner on 18.6.1990 and a detail report was submitted before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence brought on record including the inspection report, the khasra of the relevant fasli and other material evidence proceeded to answer the aforesaid three issues as follows:
(3.) LASTLY, it has been recorded that Plot No. 99/21 area 1-13-4 had been shown as abadi in the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority as well as in the inspection report, however, since the petitioner has not obtained any declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the benefit of such abadi cannot be granted in his favour. The Prescribed Authority accordingly proceeded to answer to all these three issues against the petitioner and recorded that he had 38.29 acres of the irrigated land as surplus. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed under order dated 09.09.1991 by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad after affirming the findings of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority on all the three issues. Hence, the present writ petition. Challenging the order so passed, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Prescribed Authority was directed to hold and spot inspection under the order of remand, such spot inspection had to be conducted by the Prescribed Authority himself and he could not have passed an order directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct spot inspection. It is therefore submitted that the order of remand has not been complied with.;