Paritosh K.Mukherjee, J. - (1.) THE cause list shows this case for admission. However, Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and. learned Standing Counsel have argued the case, on meats, and with their consent, the writ petition is being finally decided, in accordance with Rules of the Court,
(2.) THE facts of the case, in (brief, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') was served on the petitioner in 1975 which was in respect of land which was declared as 'surplus" by Prescribed Authority. THEreafter, a second notice was again issued on 22 10-1975 in respect of the same land. On the earlier occasion, Prescribed Authority bad declared 9.02 acres of land as 'surplus' but in the second notice, it was proposed to be raised to 26 97 acres. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid notice. Respondent nos. 4 and 5, in whose favour the laud was declared 'surplus', also filed objection Their ground of objection was that about 20 26 acres of land was already gifted to them by petitioner through a registered gift deed dated 14-6-69 and by virtue of said gift deed, they took over possession of the land. Their names were mutated in 1970. Therefore, Use aforesaid land was wrongly included in the Khata of the petitioner. The petitioner, respondent nos. 4 and 5, as well as the State adduced evidence in support of their respective case, and they also produced witnesses. Prescribed Authority declared 8.16 acres irrigated land as 'surplus' by judgment and order dated 22-6-1976. Petitioner felt aggrieved, and, went in appeal, which was, however, dismissed by Illrd Additional District Judge, Hamirour by his order dated 23-12-1976. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that though the appelate authority had allowed the objection of the petitioner regarding the issue of land occupied by Swami Din, Channi and Mataiyan, which was illegally added in the ceiling area of petitioner, but the appellate authority went wrong in dismissing the appeal by inaccurate calculation of ceiling area.
(3.) AGAINST aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner came before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 925 of 1977. which was partly allowed by Honourable Mr. Justice M. B. Farooqui on 8-11-1978 and the case was sent back to the lower appellate court for decision afresh. Thereafter, the case of the; petitioner is that nothing happened till 1985 when the case was transferred to the Court of Commissioner Jhansi on account of amendment of the Act. On 24-3-1988, the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi decided the appeal against the petitioner behind his back, as on that day the lawyers were on strike. Hence this petition.;