- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The proceeding under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was initiated against Brindaban Singh, which was decided in 1974. The dispute was in respect of Gata No. 591. On 11-10-83 a second notice after the amendment in the Act was issued declaring the land of the original tenure- holder as surplus. Before the issuance of the second notice about 4 acres of land is said to have been purchased by the present petitioner by a deed dated 21-7-1988. The petitioner states that he had no notice of second proceedings under the Act. The land of the tenure-holder was declared surplus. An appeal was filed by O. P. No. 4 with his brothers, which was decided by the order dated 23-7-1992. The appeal was allowed. Benefit of 2 Ret. of Land under Section 5 (2) of the Ceiling Act was given to them. A reveiw application was filed before the O. P. No. 2 by the O. P. No. 3. It appears that the contesting O. P. while giving his choice of plots to be retained by him and plots to be given as surplus chose it proper to give the plots sold to the petitioner by their father in 1988 as surplus land. The petitioner had no notice.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Judicial Interpretation on Revenue 22 (S. C.), Ravindra Singh v. Phool Singh and another. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that : "the Authorities ought to have examined the offer of surrender made by the respondent, Phool Singh in accordance therewith. He must be asked to surrender lands which are not the subject-matter of transfer. Only where the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that surrender of surplus land is not possible without including the transferred land, will be accept the surrender of transferred land to t-he extent necessary with the necessary consequences flowing therefrom. THE High Court and the Authorities under the Act have not followed this course. . . . . . . . . . . . . " The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to observe that the choise referred to in the order is the choice referred to in Section 12-A (d) and not independent of it. * It has not been said in the present writ petition that the petitioner approached the Prescribed Authority and informed him about his grievances or informed him at any point of time that the area of land in his possession has been purchased by him after the close of the first proceedings and before the second notice was issued. It would have facilitated the Prescribed Authority in passing appropriate orders while accepting the choice given by the contesting O. P. had the facts brought to his notice. Since these facts had not been brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority, I do not consider it proper that this Court should interefere in the matter at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to approach the Prescribed Authority and bring all relevant facts about the purchase of the plot by him before the issuance of the second notice and he may inform the details about knowledge or information of the Ceiling operations in the village. In case such an application is moved before the Prescribed Authority, the prescribed authority may consider the petitioner's application after notice to the land holder, O. P. No. 4, by a speaking order in accordance with law.
(3.) WITH these directions the petition is disposed of finally. Petition disposed of finally. .;