S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition challenge is to the judgments of the appellate authority dated 31.3.1990 and that of the prescribed authority dated 18.12.1989 (Annexures 12 and 8 to the writ petition respectively).
(2.) For the disposal of the case facts in brief will be useful to be summarised.
(3.) Proceedings are under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act which was started against the respondent No. 4 prescribed authority by its judgment dated. 28.10.74 declared an area of 22-17-0 as surplus. Respondent No. 4 give a choice including plot No. 426 and 430 etc. Appeal was filed by the respondent No. 4 against the judgment of the prescribed authority which was partly allowed and surplus land was reduced to a tune of 13-3-7. Plot offered in the choice did not cover 13-3-7 which is clear from the order of the prescribed authority dated 1.1.5.76. Writ petition was filed by respondent No. 4 in which stay was granted and thereafter that was dismissed on 10.2.78. In the year 1987 a registered agreement was executed by respondent No. 4 in favour of petitioner in respect to 46 plots (41-16) for a consideration of Rs. 15,67,500/ =. At the time of agreement to sale all the plots were shown in the name of respondent No. 4 which is clear from Khatauni extract 1390 Fasli, 93-94 Fasli. Petitioners claims that they made enquiry from the ceiling office but it was never informed that land is surplus. On 22.2.88 and 12.12.88 by means of two registered sale deed fill the plots covered by the registered agreement including plots mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition were transferred in favour of the petitioner . It is thereafter on 7.2.89 respondent No. 4 moved an application for change of his choice and instead of plot No. 266, 267 etc. he offered plot No. 418 and 419 etc. to be taken in surplus. It appears that on 28.1.89 also application for the same purpose was given but that was rejected. Petitioner on coming to know about the move of the petitioner dated 7.2.87 made application for impleadment. Petitioner annexed copy of the application of respondent No. 4 which was earlier given for change of choice which was rejected on 18.12.89. Prescribed Authority rejected application of respondent No. 4 which was moved for accepting the change in choice. Respondent No. 4 filed appeal against that order in which he did not implead the petitioner as party. On 7.2.90 petitioner filed implement application before the appellate court. Written argument was also filed along with the application dated 5.3.90. Cross objection was also filed by the petitioner along with affidavit and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Appellate court, without considering petitioner's application/objection allowed appeal of respondent No. 4 by judgment dated 31.3.90 and thus petitioners have to challenge the judgment of the appellate court dated 31.3.90 and that of the prescribed authority by which petitioner's application was rejected.;