R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The present petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, for short, 'the Act' and is directed against the judgments and orders dated 28.6.1989 passed by the appellate authority and 6.12.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority, contained in Annexures 6 and 5 respectively. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore back the possession of the land declared as surplus to the petitioners has also been made.
(3.) It appears that on enforcement of the Act a notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued against Ram Din, father of the petitioners, to show cause as to why an area measuring 40 bighas and 18 dhoors out of his holding be not declared as surplus land. The said notice was issued for the reasons that Ram Din did not file statement of his holding as provided under section 9 of the Act. On receipt of the notice Ram Din filed objection contending that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus land. It was pleaded that the entire land was un-irrigated, that there were as many as 8 members in his family, that some of the plots were recorded as grove and that there had been a family settlement among the members of family on the basis of which they were in possession of their shares. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on the record declared an area measuring 40 bighas and 18 dhoors as surplus land by its judgment and order dated 30.6.1979. Challenging the validity of the said order Ram Din filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority after framing certain issues for decision by its judgment and order dated 19.10.1979. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority framed issues as directed by the appellate authority and after hearing the parties gave benefit of one son to Ram Din and reduced the area of surplus land from 40 bighas 18 dhoors to 37 bighas 10 dhoors by its judgment and order dated 4.4.1984. Feeling aggrieved by the said order Ram Din again filed an appeal before the appellate authority. After hearing the parties the appellate authority allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 21.8.1984. It is stated that during the pendency of the matter before the Prescribed Authority Ram Din died. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners ever intimated to the Prescribed Authority about the death of Ram Din. On the other hand, a transfer application for transferring the case from the court of the Prescribed Authority to some other court of competent jurisdiction was filed. On the date fixed for hearing, the petitioners did not appear before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, had no option but to proceed ex-parte and after hearing D.G.C. (Civil) confirmed the order passed by it earlier i.e. again declared an area measuring 37 bighas 10 dhoors as surplus land by its judgment and order dated 6.12.1985. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioners, thereafter, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 28.6.1989, hence the present petition.;