V.G. Oak, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against certain orders passed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act I of 1961) (hereafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) A notice under Sec. 10 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. He filed an objection. The objection was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 1-8-1962. The statement prepared under Sec. 10 of the Act was confirmed. The petitioner appealed. The appeal was disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi on 5-2-1963. He exempted plot no. 368 to the extent of an area of four bighas. In other respects, the decision of the Prescribed Authority was confirmed. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority. The appellate authority was the Additional Civil Judge. But the petitioner has impleaded the District Judge, Jhansi as respondent no. 3.
(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, respondent no. 2 did not fix the surplus land at all. Annexure 'A' to the affidavit is a copy of the order of respondent no. 2 dated 1-8-1962. The operative part of the order is: "I, therefore, confirm the statement of surplus land in C.L.H. Form No. 3. Now, a statement under Sec. 10 of the Act is prepared in C.L.H. Form No. 3. That statement described both the ceiling area and the surplus area. That statement was confirmed on 1-8-1962. It is not, therefore, correct to say that respondent no. 2 did not fix the surplus area at all.;