M. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS Writ petition has been filed against impugned Orders dated 22.7.83, 19.9.83 and 31.3.83.
(2.) I have heard Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned standing counsel. The dispute relates to Uttar Pradesh imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner's case earlier had come up to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 980 of 1980 which was allowed on 9.12.80 and the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority for fresh consideration as to whether the land which was used for the purpose of brick kiln can be taken into consideration for calculating the ceiling limit of the Petitioner's land. After the remand of the case, the prescribed authority by the impugned Order dated 31.3.83 (Annexure 8 to the petition) passed an order holding 20.27 acres irrigated land as surplus. Against this order, the Petitioner filed appeal which has been dismissed by Order dated 18.2.83 and the review application was also rejected by Order dated 19.9.83 though the surplus land was reduced. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.
(3.) SRI V.K.S. Chaudhary has submitted that the order of the prescribed authority dated 31.3.83 is vitiated in law because although the writ Petitioner had led oral and documentary evidence, the learned prescribed authority has not considered the same and Instead observed that neither the Petitioner nor the department has led any evidence. In para 5 of the petition, the Petitioner has referred to the statement of Shree Niwas and Lekhapal which were in favour of the Petitioner. In para 5, other evidence has also been referred to but all that has not been taken into consideration. In the appellate Order dated 22.07.83 also, all this evidence has not been taken into consideration. The same is the position regarding order 19.09.83, although by the said Order dated 19.09.83, the surplus land has been reduced to 13.8 acres instead of 16 acres declared by Order dated 22.07.83. In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is correct. The evidence of the Petitioner which has been referred to in para 5 of the petition was relevant and should have been taken into consideration. Since that has not been done, the Impugned Orders dated 22.07.83, 19.09.83 and 31.03.83 are vitiated in law and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the evidence of the Petitioner.;