Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the Sushil Kumar for the State, and perused the supplementary affidavit that has been filed bringing on record the statement of Mohd. Yaqoob who is the attesting witness of the Will executed by Abdul Gaffar on 15th August 1972. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 whereby the land belonging to Abdul Gaffar has been declared as surplus in the hands of his sons and their successors who are the petitioners herein. The proceedings under the Act had been initiated by the State by issuing a notice under Section 10 (2) to the two sons of late Abdul Gaffar after his death. Notices had not been issued to Abdul Gaffar. During his life time Abdul Gaffar executed a Will on 15th August, 1972 in favour of his grand -sons. Abdul Gaffar died on 3rd September, 1972. The Ceiling proceedings were initiated against Abdul Kavi and Abdul Azeez under Section 10 (2) after the death of Abdul Gaffarr as they got their names mutated in the revenue records.
(2.) ABDUL Kavi and Abdul Azeez contested the notices issued to them on the ground that they have not inherited that part of the holding from their father which was already set apart and had devolved on the grandsons of Abdul Gaffar under the Will. It was, therefore, urged that they were not the tenure holders of that part of the land. The said land, therefore, could not have been dubbed with the petitioners' holdings. The prescribed authority vide judgment dated 30th December, 1976 declared certain area of land as surplus in the hands of the sons of Abdul Gaffar including that part of the land which was covered under the Will of Abdul Gaffar in favour of the grand -sons.
(3.) TWO appeals were filed against the order of the prescribed authority dated 30.12.1976 which were dismissed on 30.10.1978. Writ Petition No. 1876 was filed by Abdul Qadir and Writ Petition No. 1877 was filed by Abdul Azeez in the year 1979 and both the writ petitions were allowed by the judgment of this Court dated 19.8.1981 recording a clear finding that the issue relating to succession under the Will has not been considered in accordance with law nor have the courts below examined the evidence given by the petitioners and, therefore, the appellate order was set aside and the writ petition was partly allowed with a direction to the appellate court to decide this issue as well.;