Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.) These two a writ petitions arise out of same judgment and order and the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 28.6.1986, passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Balrampur and order dated 27.4.1993, delivered by Upper Aayuktya (Addl. Commissioner), Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Ceiling Case No. 387 under Section 10 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and the two appeals arising out of the order of the Prescribed Authority, Ceiling, passed in that case, i.e., Ceiling Appeal No. 333/679 and Ceiling Appeal No. 335/680, Gonda under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. As the two writ petitions involve same questions of law and arise from same order and involve same fact, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed off by one common Judgment. Writ Petition No. 45 of 1993 is being made leading case.
(2.) It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner Rahmatullah of Writ Petition No. 45 of 1993 is the respondent in the writ petition, filed by Smt. Khatoon Nisa i.e., Writ Petition No. 57 of 1993 while Smt. Khatoon Nisa has been arrayed as opposite party no. 4 in Writ Petition No. 45 of 1993. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 45 of 1993 and Smt. Khatoon Nisa, petitioner in writ petition no. 57 of 1993 have been related to each other as husband and wife.
(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are. that under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act in the year 1974 a notice was issued to the tenure-holder Rahmatullah, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 45 of 1993 who is arrayed as opposite party No. 4 in the Writ Petition No. 57 of 1993, filed by Smt. Khatoon Nisa. The tenure-holder initially filed a writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition No.608 of 1975 in this Hon'ble Court, challenging the validity of the Act as well as notice issued to him and obtained an order of stay on 10.3.1975. The aforesaid writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court. The proceedings under the Act were again commenced in 1978 and by an ex parte order dated 12.1.1979 the Prescribed Authority declared an area of 40.3.65 acre of irrigated land to be the surplus area of the tenure-holder. That having felt aggrieved from ex parte order dated 12.1.1979 the tenure-holder i.e., Sri Rahmatullah. his wife Smt. Khatoon Nisa (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 57 of 1993) and another person moved an application for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 12.1.1979, which application had been rejected and dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 23.8.1979. The appeals were filed, challenging that order and the District Judge allowed the appeals and remanded the case for decision afresh. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner Rahmatullah had filed the objection in pursuance of the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act and his objection is dated 27.11.1974. In the original objections, filed by Rahmatullah, the petitioner, a number of pleas were taken and one of the pleas taken, has been to the effect that in the Form 3 land, measuring 24.970 are of Khata No. 40 has wrongly been clubbed, included and shown as the holding of or as part of the holding of tenure-holder Rahmatullah. It was alleged in paragraph 2 of the objection that this 24.970 acre land of Khata No. 40 belonged to Smt. Khatoon Nisa and that the objector tenure-holder, i.e., the petitioner Rahmatullah had no concern with Smt. Khatoon Nisa or any of the land belonging to her. It was further asserted in paragraph 2 of the objection, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition No. 45 of 1993, that the objector Rahmatullah had divorced Smt. Khatoon Nisa, according to the Shariyat Law and that Smt. Khatoon Nisa is separate from the objector. According to the petitioner objector Smt. Khatoon Nisa had been divorced according to Shariyat Law and the objector-petitioner had no concern with the land of Smt. Khatoon Nisa but the Area Lekhpal on account of ill-will and Ranjish included Smt. Khatoon Nisa's land erroneously and illegally with the holding of the objector Rahmatullah and as such the same should be excluded from Form-3.;