T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) THE facts stated in the instant petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution are these. THE petitioner had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 18-5-1964 against the opposite party No. 4 for declaration that the petitioner was Sirdar of plot No. 3076 having an area of 0. 53 decimals in the court of Judicial Officer, Bahraich. That suit was dismissed on 6-3-1965. THE petitioner then filed an appeal in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which was allowed on 10-6-1965, vide Annexure No. 1. THE petitioner was then recorded as Sirdar in respect of the said plot in the revenue papers. However, after six months of the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, the petitioner came to know that his aforesaid plot No. 3076 was declared surplus land of the opposite-party No. 4 along with other land of the said opposite-party. THE petitioner then filed an objection under section 14 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Prescribed Authority (Opposite-Party No. 2) which was allowed and his plot was excluded from the land declared as surplus land of the opposite-party No. 4. It may be mentioned here that this fact has been denied by the State in the counter-affidavit. Later on, the Additional District Magistrate, Bahraich passed an order on 2-3-1977 declaring the plot No. 3076 as surplus land of Smt. Manwati Devi. THE petitioner filed his objections before the Additional District Magistrate contending that he had already filed a suit u/Sec. 229-B as aforesaid and he had been declared Sirdar of the said plot. He also contended that his objections under section 14 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act had been allowed and so the said plot under no circumstances be declared as surplus land of Smt. Manwati Devi. THE Additional District Magistrate rejected that objection. THE petitioner then filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Bahraich. THE learned District Judge found merits in the contentions of the petitioner but rejected the appeal on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. THE petitioner has now impugned the said order of the learned District Judge as also the order of the Additional District Magistrate in this petition. THE petition has been opposed.
(2.) IN the counter-affidavit it has been admitted that the petitioner had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 18-5-1964 in which Smt. Manwati, State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha, Mohammad Nagar were parties. It has, however, been denied that the said suit related to the land in suit because there was nothing on the case file to prove the fact. The opposite-parties have also admitted in the counter-affidavit that an appeal was filed in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which was allowed and that the petitioner was recorded as Sirdar in respect of the land in dispute under the orders of the Judicial Officer, Bahraich, dated 10-6-1965. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment of the learned District Judge. He has held that from the record it appeared that there had been a litigation between the present petitioner and Smt. Manwati Devi in respect of the disputed plot under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in which the petitioner was ordered to be recorded Sirdar of the said plot and in pursuance of the said order an entry was made in the revenue papers for the year 1373 F, in which the name of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded as Sirdar in respect of plot No. 3076 having an area of. 0.53 decimals. There is a mention of the said mutation order in the Khatauni extract for the years 1372 F. to 1374 F. The learned District Judge, therefore, found that the Additional District Magistrate was not justified in correcting the record of rights without issuing a notice to the appellant-petitioner and in rejecting the appellant-petitioner's application he not only acted in an arbitrary manner but had also exhibited complete lack of judicial approach to the merits of the case. In my view these findings of fact were sufficient enough to allow the appeal. The learned District Judge, however, felt a difficulty in doing so because he felt that the impugned order did not fall within the categories of orders mentioned under sections 11 and 12 of U. P. Act I of 1961 as amended by U. P. Act No. XVIII of 1973. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal on that technical ground. In my view, the learned District Judge fell in error in dismissing the appeal on that ground. Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act deals with re-determination of surplus land in certain cases. It enables the Prescribed Authority to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record provided that no such rectification which has the effect of increasing the surplus land shall be made, unless the Prescribed Authority has given notice to the tenure-holder of its intention to do so and has given him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (2) of Section 13-A provides that the provisions of sections 10, 11, 12, 12-A, 13, 14, 15 and 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to any proceeding under sub-section (i) of section 13-A. The impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate was passed under section 13-A of the Act. That being the position the appeal from that order would lie before the District Judge in view of the provisions of sub-sections (2) of section 13-A which makes section 13 applicable. To such proceedings an appeal lies before the District Judge under section 13 of the Act. The learned District Judge, therefore, fell in error in holding f that the appeal was not maintainable. For the reasons in the foregoing the order of the learned District Judge dated 11-7-1978 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable is liable to be quashed. The order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 13-10-1977 is also liable to be quashed for the reasons stated hereinabove and also for the reasons given by the learned District Judge in his judgment which in my view were correct.
(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the order dated 11-7-1978 of the District Judge, Bahraich as also the order dated 13-10-1977 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bahraich contained in Annexure Nos. 3 and 2 respectively to the writ petition are quashed.;