- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri B. Malik, learned Counsel for the applicants-petitioners, Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Awadhesh Singh holding brief of Sri R. C. Gupta appearing for the allottees seeking impleadment.
(2.) BY means of this application the applicants-petitioners have sought a review of the judgment of this Court dated 9-4-2002 dismissing the writ petition. The facts in short are that tenure- holder Sri Brij Bhushan Lal (father of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 and grand father of petitioner No. 3) was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1974 proposing to declare an area of 12. 90 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. The said notice was contested by the tenure- holder by filing objection which was registered as case No. 75 of 1974. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10-12-1974 confirmed the notice and declared 12. 90 acres of land as surplus in the hands of the tenure-holder against which the appeal was field. During the pendency of the appeal the Act was amended by the Act No. 20 of 1976. The amended Section 31 (2), (3) and (4) relevant for the purpose of the present case is quoted hereunder: (2) Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before January 17, 1975, and the Prescribed Authority is required to re-determine the surplus land under Section 9 of the Uttar Pardesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, then notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, every appeal under Section 13 of the Principal Act or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order, and pending immediately before the tenth day of October 1975, shall be deemed to have abated on the said date. (3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principle Act before the tenth day of October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the Principal Act) may, at anytime within a period of two years from the said date, re-determine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land. (4) The provisions of Section 13 of the principal Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every order re- determining surplus land under sub-section (3) of this Section or Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974: Provided that period of thirty days shall, in the case of an appeal against the order referred to in Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, be computed from the date of such order on October 10, 1975, whichever is later. Section 5 of the amended Act provides that the provision of 13-A of the principal Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every re-determination of surplus land under this Section or under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid amendment the Prescribed Authority issued a fresh notice and proceedings were drawn afresh for determination of the surplus area and accordingly a fresh case No. 293 of 1976 was registered. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31-12-1976 found that the tenure-holder was having surplus land to the tune of 12. 90 acres which was declared surplus during the earlier proceedings and there is no further surplus land in his possession. Aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-1976 passed by Prescribed Authority, the State of U. P. filed an appeal No. 320 of 1977 before the District Judge Fatehpur which was dismissed on 2-8-1983 as abated on account of non-substitution of the heirs of deceased tenure-holder. However, the petitioners had moved a substitution application to substitute them on record as heirs of deceased. Since the appeal of the State was dismissed as abated hence the substitution application also stood rejected.;