K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed against the judgment of the District Judge, Gorakhpur, dated 10-8-1982 reducing surplus area of the firm to 1176.911 square metres from 1495.791 square metres, and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. M/s. K. B. Industries Corporation, Gorakhpur, is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The said firm consists of four partners, amongst whom the petitioner Kunj Behari Lal is one of them. Each one of the partners had one-fourth share. Upon coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner Kunj Behari Lal filed a statement before the Competent Authority in his individual capacity in respect of the property held by M/s. K. B. Industries Corporation, Gorakhpur. On the basis of the said statement, a notice alongwith a draft statement was sent by the Competent Authority proposing to declare 3235.44 square metres as excess vacant land. The petitioner filed an objection stating that the property since was the joint property of all the four partners, namely, Kunj Behari Lal, Laxman Kumar Paliwal, Smt. Sita Devi Paliwal, and Smt. Usha Devi Paliwal, and each of the partners had one-fourth share in it, therefore, the petitioner's share in the said property being 1308.86 square metres was within the ceiling limits prescribed for Gorakhpur.
(3.) THE Competent Authority allowed the objection of the petitioner Kunj Behari Lal in part and declared 1495.79l square metres as excess vacant land. THE State of U. P. did not prefer any appeal against this order. Kunj Behari Lal filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur, who, after having found that since the area covered by the dwelling unit, which was 318.88 square metres, was liable to be exempted, the total land surplus with the petitioner was 1076.911 square metres. Against this judgment, Kunj Behari Lal has filed Writ Petition No. 13067 of 1982, whereas Writ Petition No. 13377 of 1982 has been preferred by the State of U. P. The grievance of the State of U. P. is that in reducing the surplus, the learned District Judge has misconstrued sub-section (9) of Section 4 of the Act. The case of the petitioner Kunj Behari Lal, however, is that as the property in dispute belonged to the firm and not to him individually and as no notice was served on the firm, therefore, the proceedings were illegal. The alternative case further was that a firm is not a juristic person, hence the property held by the firm would be deemed to be that of the partners, and as there were four partners in the said firm, the share of each one of them being 1308.86 square metres, no part of the land was liable to be declared as surplus.;