R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It appears that a notice under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', was issued to the petitioner, Ram Bharosey Lal calling upon him to show cause as to why the land mentioned in the said notice be not declared as surplus. It is stated that the said notice was not served upon the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority proceeded with the case and vide order dated 30.09.1974 declared an area measuring 5.08 acres of land as surplus. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by its judgment and order dated 15.05.1975. The said order has become final. In the writ petition, it has also been stated that the petitioner thereafter filed a restoration application which was allowed on 07.04.1981 and that thereafter two appeals were filed; one by the petitioner and the other by the State. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed while the appeal filed by the State was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.08.1983, hence the present petition.
(3.) In the judgment passed by the appellate authority, there is absolutely no reference of filing of the restoration application or the same being allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Alongwith the writ petition, no order of the Prescribed Authority allowing the restoration application has been filed. The appellate authority has simply observed that the order dated 15.9.1975 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner has become final, therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to interfere with the matter.;