- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(2.) BY the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-11-1981 passed by respondent no. 2. Briefly stated according to the petitioners a notice under section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, to Sri Ram Kishore Shastri, the original tenure holder, who filed objection before the Prescribed Authority challenging the proposal of de claring 6. 69 Hectare (105. 19 Biswa) of agricultural land as surplus holding on various grounds. The Prescribed Author ity vide order dated 26-6- 1976 rejected the objections whereupon an appeal was filed in which by the order dated 30-04-1977 the relief to the extent of 4j/2 acres of the land only was granted by the appellate authority. Thereafter a writ pe tition was filed in the Allahabad High Court and the court has remanded the case for fresh disposal. During the pendency of the case Sri Ram Kishore Shastri died on 8-1-1978. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1, his son and his widow filed objections chal lenging the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act asserting that no land could be treated as surplus. The Prescribed Au thority vide its judgment and order dated /-2-1981 allowed the objections holding that no portion of the land could be declared as surplus as the land held by the petitioners fell within the prescribed limits. With this order the notice under section 10 (2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was dis charged. Against the order dated /-2-1981, State respondent no. 1 filed an appeal, which was heard and disposed of by the respondent no. 2 vide judg ment and order dated 18-11-1981 and remanded the case for deciding it afresh.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no. 2, present writ petition has been filed by the petition ers. The petitioners have submitted that the disputed land is not irrigated and it has been sufficiently proved by the evidence on record. Thus the appellate authority has manifestly erred in assum ing that the Prescribed Authority had not decided the question of the land in dis pute being unirrigated. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under the Act the surplus land vests in the State only when the surplus land of a particular tenure-holder has been finally determined and the Collector has taken possession thereof under section 14 (3) of the Act. Such land continues to vest in the tenure- holder till the surplus land is finally determined and the Collector takes possession thereof. In the present case that stage was never reached as the case was remanded by the appellate au thority and thereafter by the High Court for determination of surplus land. Sri Ram Kishore Shastri continued to be the tenure-holder and his entire holding con tinued to vest in him till his death. On the death the petitioners inherited of late Sri Ram Kishore Shastri. The petition ers were thus tenure-holders of the hold ing in their own rights. No determination of surplus land could take place under the Act in respect of a deceased tenure-holder. The act does not contemplate such a determination.;