Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) The petitioners 23 in numbers claim to be members of a Farming Co-operative Society known as Bitraula Co-operative Farming Krishi Society Limited duly registered under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The said society was founded in 1959. After its formation the society applied for mutation of its name in the revenue record. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order date 1.4.1960 directed to expunge the name of the individual tenure holders, who had pooled their lands in the society and recorded the same in the name of society. Apart from the land pooled by the members, the society subsequently purchased certain area of land out of its own fund.
(2.) On the enforcement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act being Act No. 1 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act), a notice under Section 10 (2) was issued in the name of the petitioner No. 1. The entire land recorded in the name of the society was clubbed with his holdings on the ground that the same is being ostensibly held by him. The notice was contested by the petitioner No. 1 by filing objection. The prescribed authority vide order dated 6.5.1964 held that petitioner No. 1 does not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit and discharged the notice, a categorical finding was recorded by the prescribed authority in following words; "From the perusal of the records before me it is evident that land in dispute were formally recorded in the exclusive names of certain other persons, not being relation to the objector as tenant in chief and afterwards the same were expunged from their names in favour of Bitraula Sahkari Samiti limited vide order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 22.3.1060/1.4.1961. There is no record to show that these lands in question have been wholly or partly in possession of the objector, Sri Shiv Mahendra Kumar Singh. The contention of the objector has got no concern with these lands, has also been duly proved by the overwhelming oral evidence. In view of the circumstances, the objector Sri Shiv Mahendra Kumar Singh cannot be deemed to have held these lands ostensibly in name of other persons".
(3.) The old act came to be amended by U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 and further by U.P. Act 12 OF 1975 which came into force in 1976. Again fresh notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1. The notice again included the holdings of the petitioner No. 2 to 23 which was recorded in the name of society as well as land of other persons who were members of the society. After deduction of the permissible ceiling area an area of 27.91 acres in terms of irrigated land was proposed to be declared surplus in the hand of the petitioner No. 1. Along with the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, notices in Form No. 3-AA of the Forms prescribed under the Rules, framed under the Act, were also issued in the name of Cooperative Society and certain other persons on the ground that land recorded in their names is being ostensibly held by the petitioner No. 1. The notice was contested by the petitioner No. 1. Apart from other, one of the grounds taken in the objection was that the land standing in the name of co-operative society has wrongly clubbed with his holdings and the finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings under the old act will operate as res-judicata. This objection of the petitioner No. 1 did not find favour with the prescribed authority and certain area was declared surplus. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner No. 1 filed appeal. Other persons who were issued notices in Farm 3 AA also filed appeal. The Appellate authority vide order dated 17.8.1977 allowed the same and remanded the case back to the prescribed authority. After remand the prescribed authority again decided the dispute vide order dated 3.1.1980. While, accepting some of the grounds raised in the objection, the ground that land held by other persons who had pooled the same in the society could not be clubbed with his holdings, again did not find favour with the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority held that the finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings under the old act that petitioner No. 1 cannot be held to hold land standing in the name of society ostensibly will not operate as res-judicata in the instant proceedings. Again two appeals were filed; one by petitioner No. 1 and other by the society and 12 other persons who were issued notices in Form 3 AA. The appellate authority also rejected the contention that finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings under the old act shall operate as resjudicata. However, it remanded the case back to the prescribed authority to consider the question whether the co-operative society is genuine or not after issuing notices to all the members of the society in compliance of Rule-8.;