- (1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated by the Prescribed Authority against one Sri Dwarika Dutt Ram Pandey and after hearing the recorded tenure holder the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 21st June, 1976 declared surplus land. The said order was challenged by Dwarika Dutt Ram Pandey by way of appeal which was allowed by the District Judge by judgment and order dated 20th September, 1976 holding that there was no surplus land. The Civil Court by the order dated 7-5-1993 has cancelled the sale-deed dated 1-4- 1961 executed by Sri Dwarika Dutt Ram Pandey who has expired after the decision of the appeal. The Prescribed Authority on an application moved by the Naib Tahsildar has initiated the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 13 (A) of the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 21st February, 1997 has held that the proceedings under Section 13 (1) of the Act are not maintainable and the State may proceed under Section 29 of the Ceiling Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority an appeal was preferred by the State, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 29th July, 2003 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision on merits. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, the petitioners have approached this Court. Sri D. C. Mukharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the sale-deed of the year 1961 was cancelled by the Civil Court in the year 1993, the State can proceed against the petitioners only in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 29 of the Ceiling Act and the proceedings initiated by the State under Section 13 (A) of the Ceiling Act were not maintainable. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has not disputed about the legal position contained in Section 29 of the Act.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Section 29 of the Ceiling Act is as follows: "29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land. Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (a) any land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under a decree or order of any Court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him; or (b) any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grove-land loses its character as grove-land or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the categories exempted, the ceiling area shall be liable to be re-determined (land accordingly the provisions of this Act, except Section 16, shall mutandis apply ). '' Admittedly, the original tenure holder Sri Dwarika Dutt Ram Pandey is not alive and the petitioners are the descendent of late Dwarika Dutt Ram Pandey. The petitioners have acquired the land under a decree as the sale-deed executed by Dwarika Dutt Ram Pandey was cancelled by the Civil Court by the judgment and decree dated 7-5-93. The proceedings initiated by the State under Section 13 (A) of the Ceiling Act on the basis of the application of the Naib Tahsildar dated 12th January, 1993 were legally not maintainable. The impugned order is not sustainable.;