Kailash Nath Misra, J. - (1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 12 -6 -1978 passed by the District Judge. Gonda dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') by which learned District Judge has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that the order dated 24 -5 -1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority which is contained in Annexure No. 1, be also quashed so far as it relates to the determination of the claim of the petitioners by the Prescribed Authority by the aforesaid order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as follows: - - The opposite party No. 4 Salaman Khan was served with a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act in respect of the land -holding recorded in his name. It was proposed that certain land which was recorded in the name of opposite party No. 4, would be declared to be surplus as he holds land beyond the prescribed ceiling limit. Opposite party No. 4 filed an objection against the said notice on several grounds. Petitioners 1 to 21 also filed objection under Section 10(2) of the Act claiming to be tenure holders having acquired Sirdari rights over certain plots of the disputed holding recorded in the name of opposite party No. 4 on the basis of adverse possession. Some other objectors had also filed objections claiming Sirdari rights in the land of the holding recorded in the name of Salaman. The Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 4 -5 -76, decided the case. The claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that a ceiling authority cannot decide the claim of the petitioners of being tenure -holders of certain plots of the disputed holding on the basis of adverse possession. It was observed by the Prescribed Authority while deciding issue No. 8 that the petitioners should file regular title suit with regard to that land and their objection cannot be considered by him in these proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act wherein they had claimed to have acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession on certain plots in the disputed holding recorded in the name of opposite party No. 4 Salaman. The Prescribed Authority had thus not determined the claim of the petitioners on merits. Aggrieved by this order petitioners had preferred appeal, on 12 -6 -1978. Prior to it opposite party No. 4 had also filed an appeal against the order dated 4 -5 -76 passed by the Prescribed Authority. This appeal was filed by Opposite Party No. 4 on 11 -12 -1977 and it was allowed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 7 -2 -77 by which the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for being decided on merits according to law and in the light of the observations made therein concerning the claim of opposite party No. 4. Learned District Judge, however, rejected the appeal of the petitioners' vide order dated 12 -6 -78 holding it to be time -barred. He refused to treat the appeal within time which, according to him, was filed after a long delay. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kant, urged that the petitioners had applied for copy on 27 -5 -76 of the impugned order dated 24 -5 -76 passed by the Prescribed Authority. This copy was prepared and posted on 5 -10 -1977 and the appeal was thereafter filed on 11 -12 -77. Learned counsel urged that the appeal was within limitation and these was no question of rejecting it as lime -barred. In reply, learned standing counsel urged that the learned District Judge has expressed his doubt with regard to the filing of the petitioner's application for copy on 27 -5 -76. Learned counsel thus urged that the appeal filed by the petitioners has been wrongly dismissed as time -barred.
(3.) I have gone through the impugned order dated 12 -7 -1978 passed by the learned District Judge very carefully and I find that it cannot be sustained, firstly, because there was nothing on record to indicate that the endorsement on the certified copy issued by the office of the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the application for copy was moved on 27 -5 -76 was wrong and manipulated endorsement. Learned District Judge has observed in the impugned order that the petitioner in collusion with the concerned official had manipulated the endorsement on the copy regarding filing of the application for copy and its preparation. If that be so, learned District Judge should have directed the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate to take action against the official incharge of the Copying Department who had made the endorsement on the certified copy issued to the petitioners but curiously enough this was not done by the learned District Judge while dismissing the appeal with the aforesaid observations for which apparently there is no basis to come to that conclusion. The report which was called for from the office of the Prescribed Authority indicated that no register for preparation of the copies issued by the office of the Prescribed Authority was maintained. Thus it cannot be said that the endorsement on the copy issued to the petitioner with regard to the date of filing of the application for copy or its delivery was fictitiously got recorded by the petitioner in collusion with the concerned official. In these circumstances there was no occasion for doubting the endorsement made on the certified copy appended to the memo of appeal according to which a long time was taken in the preparation of the copy from 27th May, 1975 to 10th October, 1977. Although it was unduly longtime in preparing the copy but the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the faults committed by the Copying Department of the Prescribed Authority in preparing the copy after such a long delay. In these circumstances time taken in the preparation of the copy was to be excluded and appeal filed by the petitioners could not be treated to be filed beyond time. Thus the impugned order dated 12 -6 -1978 passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.;