Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition deals with the interpretation of Section 29/30- of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (the principal Act) as amended by the UP Act no. 18 of 1973 (the amending Act). The principal Act as amended is referred to as the Act, THE FACTS
(2.) A notice was issued to Sukhbir Singh (the Respondent) under the Act for determining the ceiling area applicable to him and for declaration of surplus land. In these pr6ceedings the Prescribed Authority discharged the notice on 8.11974 Holding that there are 8 members in the Respondent's family namely, two wives Smt. Chameli and Smt. Lali three sons Sahbir Singh, Ajit and Kalu and two minor daughters Ombiri and Rajbiri. Subsequently an application was filed on behalf of State that Smt. Lali is not the wife of Sukhbir Singh but is the widow of Raghubir Singh brother of Sukhbir Singh and number of family members was wrongly determined. In the meantime UP Act No. 2 of 1975 was enacted and a fresh notice was issued. In these proceedings some orders were passed and case was remanded a few times. In these orders, it was held that Smt. Lalli was not the wife of the Respondent but was the widow of his brother Raghubir Singh. The Prescribed Authority lastly by its order dated 26.12.1980 determined 3 Bigha 9 Biswa 9 Biswansi of irrigated land as surplus. The Respondent filed an appear and raised the objections that: • The property was ancestral Sir and Khudkast. • His eldest son was born prior to abolition of Zamindari and he had half share.
(3.) The respondent also filed documents in support of his case. His appeal was allowed on 2.1.1984 on the ground that: • The property was ancestral Sir and Khudkast in the hands of the Respondent • His elder son was born prior to abolition of zamindari. • The Respondent and his eldest son had half share each in the property. In case half share is given to the eldest son then there will be no surplus land as only 3 Bigha 9 Biswa 9 Biswani of land was declared as surplus. This order has become final. It determines that there was no surplus in the hands of the Respondent on the date of commencement of the Amending Act namely 8.6.1973.;