- (1.) Proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 have been initiated against the petitioner. An order came to be passed by the Prescribed Authority on 14.8.2003, discharging the notices issued under section 9 of the Act. This order of the Prescribed Authority was subjected to challenge in an appeal at the instance of State Government, which was allowed. A restoration filed in the matter was rejected. Aggrieved by the orders passed in favour of the State, the petitioners' predecessor in interest filed a Writ Petition No.2188 of 2005, which was allowed by this Court on 30.3.2012 and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Appellate Authority has virtually reiterated the order passed on the previous occasion and while setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority, a direction has been issued to declare 4-8-15 bigha land as surplus and to take possession of it from the petitioners, after affording them an opportunity to express their choice.?
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Appellate Authority is a virtual repetition of the previous order passed in the year 2004 and there is no independent application of mind, inasmuch as the Appellate Authority has borrowed the reasoning and the language employed previously while deciding the appeal. It is also submitted that petitioners' claim on merits has not been dealt with by the Appellate Authority.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents State, on the other hand, submits that petitioners' predecessor in interest pursuant to the notices issued under section 9 of the Act had submitted his objection on 7.8.2002. It is also pointed out that after the matter was reserved for orders by the Prescribed Authority, a subsequent amendment was introduced in the objection and without any hearing on the amended averments contained in the objection and without affording opportunity to adduce the evidence in that regard, the Prescribed Authority had proceeded to discharge the notices, and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority requires no interference.;