Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. The brief facts are these. The petitioner states in Paras 1 and 2 of the writ petition as follows: That in operation of the Ceiling proceeding initiated by the opposite party No. 2, 32, 23 acres of irrigated land of the petitioner has been declared surplus. That thereafter the consolidation proceedings started in the village and the entire land belonging to the petitioner were brought under consolidation operation in view of the notification issued under Section 4(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the statements made in Paras 1 and 2 of the writ petition have been virtually admitted. The agreed position, therefore, between the parties is that some land of the petitioner was declared as surplus by the Ceiling Authorities and after the said declaration, the consolidation proceedings started. The land of the petitioner was covered by such consolidation proceedings. The point involved in the instant case is as to what is the effect of the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities reducing the area of the petitioner in the consolidation proceedings. Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act should have been issued to the petitioner. In my view as the case law stands, there is no justification for this contention. As I read the Division Bench pronouncement in Satyapal Singh v. State, 1979 AWC 217 and the Full Bench decision in Ram Charan Singh v. State, 1978 AWC 677 it is clear that the said pronouncements do not suggest that in a situation of this kind, any fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act is required to be issued to the tenure -holder. The instant is a case where the Consolidation Authorities passed the order reducing the area after the order passed by the Ceiling Authorities determining the surplus land had become final. In this situation, the following observation occurring in the aforesaid Division Bench pronouncement in Satyapal's Singh's case will be applicable: Learned counsel invited our attention to a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Charan v. State of U.P. (supra). At the end of judgment, an illustration with reference to Section 29 of the Ceiling Act was dealt with. But that has no bearing upon the position as obtaining in the present case. The Full Bench was concerned with the reverse case, namely, where consolidation proceedings commenced alter the completion of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Here, we are concerned with the problem of Ceiling Act proceedings commencing while consolidation proceedings are going on and before the completion of proceedings under the Ceiling Act, final orders had been passed under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This position is not dealt with in the aforesaid decision.
(3.) In other words, according to the aforesaid Division Bench pronouncement, so far as the present case of the petitioner is concerned, the same will be covered by what has been stated in sub -para (2) of Para 54 and Para 55 of the Full Bench pronouncement on page 684. The Full Bench emphasised as follows: It was also stressed that Section 29 of the Ceiling Act provides for re -determination of ceiling area of a tenure -holder where he has come to hold under a decree or order by any Court or as a result of succession or transfer or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, land which together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him. 55. But the Ceiling Act makes no provision either in Section 29 or anywhere else where a tenure -holder may unfortunately happen to lose some lad after his ceiling area has been determined under the Ceiling Act.;