K. C, Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner who was the tenure holder within the meaning of that term used in U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor, dated 13th August, 1981, accepting the appeal of the State and directing the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus area in accordance with the appellate judgment dated 6th October, 1977.
(2.) THE petitioner was a tenure holder having his holding in a number of villages. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 18 of 1976 was served upon the petitioner in the year 1976 regarding his holdings in the villages mentioned above. THE petitioner filed an objection on a a number of grounds under Section 10 (2). THE Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence, held vide its judgment dated 30th June, 1976 that the petitioner had 46.39 acres of irrigated land as surplus. In the revenue appeal no. 480 of 1976 preferred by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge allowed the same partly and reduced the surplus area of the petitioner to 26.07 acres irrigated land. THE learned Additional District Judge gave the following directions to the Prescribed Authority :- " THE learned Prescribed Authority shall declare the plots as surplus land accordingly after taking choice of tenure holder........." Against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner as well as the State of U. P. filed writ petitions in this Court. The writ of the petitioner was numbered as writ petition no. 635 of 1978 whereas that of the State was numbered as 1132 of 1978. Writ petition no. 635 of 1978 was dismissed on the 18th December, 1978, whereas the writ of the State Government (no. 1132 of 1978) was dismissed on 25-8-1981. The petitioner filed an application for Special Leave before the Supreme Court but that was also rejected. During the pendency of the writ petition No. 1132 of 1978 (preferred by the State), the State of U. P. published a notification dated 27-9-1979 in the U. P. Gazette dated 27th October, 1979 under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire certain area mentioned therein for construction of Barrage. This was followed by a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7-1-1980! which was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 9th January, 1980. Certain area of the petitioner was also, under the proceedings of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, included in the notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and possession of the same was taken by the State Government on the 27th July 1980.
(3.) UPON the matter coming before the Prescribed Authority for determining the plots to be declared surplus, the petitioner filed objection, inter alia, on the ground that as some land of the petitioner had been acquired by the State of U. P. for the construction of Barrage and possession thereof was also taken, the petitioner was entitled to the exclusion of the land which had been acquired by the State of U. P. from his surplus limit. He also had, however, given a choice with regard to the plots to be declared surplus in case the Authority decided to hold the same. The Prescribed Authority upheld the objection of the petitioner by the judgment dated February 23, 1982 by holding that the land which had been acquired by the State of U. P. for construction of Ganga Barrage was liable to be excluded from determination of the ceiling area. As a result of this order of the Prescribed Authority, the ceiling area which had been initially declared and had become final, was reduced. This petition is connected with writ No. 13310 of 1982, Mohd. Shafiq v. State of U. P. The facts of that petition are similar to the facts of this petition.;