R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 5.1.1984 and 30.12.1982 passed by the authorities below. ,
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief, are that a notice under section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition on Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, for short, 'the Act' was issued to the respondent No. 3 calling upon him to show cause as to why an area measuring 79 bighas, 5 biswas and five biswansis of land out of his holding be not declared as surplus. On receipt of the notice respondent No. 3 filed objection pleading that he had a family of more than five persons out of whom four of his sons were major. He was, thus, entitled to four hectares of more land for the two of his major sons. Other pleas were also taken. The parties produced evidence, oral and documentary in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after perusing the material on record and hearing the parties declared an area measuring 18 bighas, 7 biswas and 10 biswansis as surplus land by its judgment and order dated 29.1.1981. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority with certain directions: On remand, in compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority, the Prescribed Authority reduced the area of surplus land from 18 bighas, 7 biswas and 10 biswansis to 7 bighas, 9 biswas and 11 biswansis by its judgment and order dated 30.12.1982. The village where the land in dispute situate was under the operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Therefore, after the aforesaid order was passed another objection was filed by respondent No. 3 contending that during consolidation operation area of his holding was reduced and now no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. The application/objection filed by the respondent No. 3 was entertained by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that during consolidation proceedings area of holding of the respondent No.3 was reduced and now he was in possession of the land within his ceiling limit. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, discharged the notice by its judgment and order dated 30.12.1982. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed by it by order dated 5.1.1984 ex parte. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for recalling the order dated 5.1.1984, which was allowed on 25.5.1984. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner was heard again and was dismissed on 10.9.1984. Hence, the present petition.;