- (1.) This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 30.7.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly and order dated 28.2.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Shahjahanpur.
(2.) The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that notice under section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon the petitioner along with one Shri Laxman Swaroop Seth. By order dated 26.7.1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority(Ceiling) Sadar, 1.24 acres land of the petitioner and 1.33 acres (irrigated) land of the share of Shri Laxman Swaroop Seth in the joint holdings possessed by them was declared surplus. Both the tenure holders separately assailed the order of the Prescribed Authority by filing separate appeal under section 13 of the Act. Both the appeals were decided together by judgment and order dated 18.12.1976 passed in Civil Appeal no. 261 of 1976(Ceiling)(Shri Nand Kishore Seth Vs. State of U.P.).The surplus area in the share of the petitioner Nand Kishore Seth was declared 0.28 acres(irrigated). After proceedings for ceiling initiated against the petitioner came to an end by judgment and order dated 18.12.1976 passed by the appellate authority, second notice under section 10 (2) of the Act was issued on 14.10.1996. Copy of the notice has been annexed as annexure S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 1.10.2006.The assertions in the notice are to the effect that details with regard to the surplus land possessed by the petitioner on 8.6.1973 has been prepared under section 10 (1) of the Act. Petitioner was further required to explain as to why said details be not treated as correct. He was further required to file his objection to the said notice. Petitioner filed his objection on 14.7.1997 and stated therein that he has no land beyond ceiling limit and after decision dated 18.7.1976 in appeal no. 261 of 1976 filed by the petitioner, there is no change in the ceiling limit of the petitioner. He had not purchased or acquired any land thereafter. The petitioner further got his statement recorded on 17.9.1997 and asserted that he does not hold land beyond ceiling limit after proceedings with regard to surplus land had become final. The fresh proceedings initiated against the petitioner by way of notice dated 14.10.1996 is illegal.
(3.) The prescribed authority registered a case no.319 and framed four issues. Issue no. 2 whether petitioner had land beyond ceiling limit, Issue no. 3 whether the proceedings are barred by res judicata and issue no. 4 was as to whether any land of the petitioner is to be declared surplus. Issues no. 2,3 and 4 were decided together and the prescribed authority though recorded a finding that earlier proceedings under the ceiling Act were initiated against the petitioner. However decided the issue of res judicata against the petitioner on the ground that copy of the order passed in the previous proceedings were not filed by him and petitioner had failed to prove that situation has not changed since after the judgment and order dated 18.12.1976. The issues were decided on the basis of statement of Naib Tehasildar(ceiling)recorded and the Prescribed authority did not give any independent finding of its own.;