A. Banerji, J. - (1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court noticing some difference in opinions in two Division bench cares of this Court made a reference for the constitution of a Full Bench for consideration of the following two questions: Whether the decision in Balwant v. State 1980 AWC 234 DB or the decisions Uma Shanker v. State : 1980 AWC 487 DB, Sukhbir v. Prescribed Authority : 1978 AWC 838 DB and Kedar Singh v. First Additional District Judge : 1979 AWC 692 DB lay down the correct law on the question of the true meaning and scope of Section 31(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. XX of 1976) and Section 38 -B of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended upto -date?
(2.) WHAT is the true meaning and scope of Sub -section (2) of Section 31 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act (U.P. Act No. XX of 1976) with reference to the present case? 2. There was a suggestion in the referring order for the decision of the writ petition itself by the Full Bench. However, there is no order by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for doing so. But having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we think it proper to decide the writ petition as well. In his referring order the learned single Judge has noticed the following facts. Proceedings under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were taken against Prakash Singh the Petitioner and his co -tenants Harpal Singh and Smt. Dalip Kaur. Objections were filed by the tenure holders. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31 -12 -74 held that the three tenure holders were entitled to hold 36.67 acres area and the remaining land was surplus land The appeals filed by the tenure holders were dismissed on 19th March, 1976. They filed a writ petition No. 5563 of 1975 in this Court which was also dismissed on 21 -12 -1977. An application for special leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court also met with the same fate.
(3.) MEANWHILE , the Prescribed authority issued a fresh notice on 16 -6 -76 under Section 10(2) of the Act to the Petitioner Prakash Singh and ten other persons. The notice indicated that these ten persons were ostensible owners on behalf of the real tenure holder Prakash Singh. Objections filed by the tenant and these ten persons were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30th March, 1977. He held while deciding issue No. 1 relating to Karamjit Singh, Baljit Singh, Harender Singh and Smt. Pushpender Kaur that as their case was pending in a writ petition it did not require consideration at that stage. However, in regard to the remaining six persons the Prescribed Authority held in his finding on issue No. 2 that no part of the land in the heads of these persons was liable to be declared surplus. The Prescribed Authority also observed in his order that the necessary action in connection with the land of Karamjit Singh, Baljit Singh, Harender Singh and Smt. Pushpender Kaur who had acquired land after 24th January, 1971, shall be taken after the decision of the writ petition by this High Court. Although the number of the writ petition was not mentioned but in all probability it meant Writ Petition No. 5563 of 1975 which was pending even on 30 -3 -1977.;