K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders passed by opposite parties 1 and 2 in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, (for short the Act), was issued to the recorded tenure -holder Nazim Ali son of Sri Kasim Khan, residents of Kanjarwa, District Bahraich. This notice was in respect of the land situate in several villages including village Kanjarwa recorded in the name of Sri Nazim Ali. An objection was filed by Sri Nazim Ali against the notice served on him. After taking into consideration the objections raised by Nazim Ali, the Prescribed Authority declared land measuring 25.648 acres to be surplus land. Sri Nazim Ali preferred appeal. The appellate Court reduced the land declared as surplus to 16 -766 acres. Shri Nazim Ali thereupon filed an application before the Prescribed Authority on 8 -12 -1976 in which he indicated his choice and mentioned plots situate in village Kanjarwa which he wanted to be declared surplus land to the extent of 16.766 acres. At this stage of the proceedings the petitioners filed an application on 13 -1 -1977 before the Prescribed Authority asserting that they are the tenure -holders of the land situate in village Kanjarwa on the basis of a decree for partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, dated 5 -9 -1959 and 30 -1 -1960 petitioners had thus asserted that the land be not declared as surplus in respect of which choice was indicated by Nazim Ali in his application, before the Prescribed Authority. The objection filed by the petitioners was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, vide -judgment and order dated 23 -1 -1978 with the observations that since the objectors have not placed any evidence on record, in opposition to the choice indicated by Sri Nazim Ali and it is also not indicated under which provision the said objection has been filed by the petitioner, and, as such, it observes to be rejected. The Prescribed Authority with these observations declared land measuring 16.766 acres in irrigated terms as surplus land in the hand of opposite party No. 4, who was recorded as tenure -holder of the land holding in question situate in several villages. Aggrieved by this order petitioners had preferred appeal which was dismissed by District Judge, Bahraich, vide order dated 3 -7 -1978 holding that the appeal was not maintainable as the appellants were not parties to the proceedings under Section 11(2)(a) of the Act. The Land in dispute was recorded in the name of Nazim Ali as tenure -holder and during the pendency of the objection filed by Nazim Ali before the Prescribed Authority the appellants had not filed any objection asserting their claim in respect of the land in dispute. They did not make any application for being impleaded as party in the case nor they had put in appearance in the appeal filed by Nazim Ali. Thus with those observations learned District Judge held that the appeal filed by the petitioners was not maintainable because they could not be said to be aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act.
(2.) AFTER dismissal of their appeal on the said preliminary ground the petitioners filed objection before the Prescribed Authority on 17 -10 -1978 under Section 13A of the Act for the cancellation of the order dated 23 -1 -1978 and that they be treated to be tenure -holder of the land situate in village Kanjarwa and it be held that Nazim Ali is not the tenure -holder of the same. The petitioners in their objection inter -alia pleaded that they are tenure -holders of the aforesaid land in question and their right, title and interest has been declared in suit for partition between the parties decided on 5 -9 -1959 and in pursuance thereof final partition decree was also prepared on 30th November, 1960. This objection was opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that no such objection is maintainable under Section 13A of the Act. The Prescribed Authority summarily rejected the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 13A, vide order dated 28 -10 -1978 merely on the ground that District Judge had earlier rejected appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 23 -1 -1978 vide order dated 3 -7 -1978. Aggrieved by the order dated 28 -10 -1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners preferred appeal under Section 13 of the Act which was dismissed by the District Judge, Bahraich vide order dated 21 -7 -1979 being not maintainable. Learned District Judge observed that the objector appellants were not aggrieved from any orders passed either under Section 11(2) or under Section 12 of the Act, and, as such, the appeal was not maintainable. It has further been observed that the petitioner could not legally seek review of the order dated 23 -1 -1978 which was passed in the proceedings against Sri Nazim Ali, by moving review applicant on under Section 13A of the Act before the Prescribed Authority. These orders have now been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders very carefully.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri A.R. Khan, Advocate urged that objection filed by the petitioner under Section 13A of the Act was, as a matter of fact, covered by Section 11(2) of the Act and the same should have been treated to be one under that provision. Learned counsel urged that the Prescribed Authority and also the learned District Judge have acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the objection of the petitioner being not maintainable instead of deciding it on merits treating it to be under Section 11(2) of the Act. In reply learned Standing counsel urged that since objection under Section 13A could not be treated to be one under Section 11(2) of the Act as no such prayer was made by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority, and, as such, the Prescribed Authority has committed no error in rejecting the objection under Section 13A of the Act as not maintainable, which provides for the review of the order passed in a case either suo motu at the instance of the concerned tenure -holders against whom the order has been passed. Learned counsel urged that under Section 13A of the Act the alleged claim of title of the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute could not be gone into. Petitioners had not sought the amendment of their objection nor any prayer was made for treating the objection under Section 11(2) of the Act, and, as such, the Prescribed Authority was not obliged to proceed to decide the case on merits creating the objection to be one under Section 11(2) of the Act. Learned Standing counsel has further contended that since the declaration of surplus land has been notified under Section 24(1) of the Act, and, as such, the objection filed by the petitioners claiming right, title and interest in the land in dispute as tenure -holder could not be entertained even under Section 11(2) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, could not treat the objection filed by the petitioners under Section 13A to be one under Section 11(2) of the Act.;