H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Artical. 226 of the Constitution, petitioner O.P. saini prays that order of the prescribed authority dated September 10, 1974 rejecting his application for production of evidence, and the order dated 20-9-1974, passed by the District Judge Saharanpur, dismissing his revision application be quashed. Subsequently he moved an application dated 20-1-1975 and further prayed that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-10-1974 Declaring certain land as surplus of his father Phool Singh be also quashed.
(2.) IN due course, a notice under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon Phool singh, Father of petitioner O.P. saini. That notice was in respect of an area of land which stood recorded in village papers in the name of Phool singh. On 29-6-1974, the petitioner filed an objection stating that his father had not claimed a larger ceiling area on the ground that he had an adult son. According to the petitioner he was the adult son of Phool Singh, who was in cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 36 area about 45 Bighas, for about 12 years. His father Sri Phool singh prevented the Lekhpal from entering his name in the revenue papers and he did not take any step to get his name recorded as he did not want to displease his father. He therefore, prayed that the Lekhpal be directed to correct the entries and record him as being in cultivatiory possession of the plots. He also made a request that he be made a party in ceiling proceedings and his objections heard. He also indicated that he was reserving his right to submit amended objections. On 22-8-1974 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sub-Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority Roorkee, made an order stating that he was not concerned with the objections which the petitioner intended to make, but then he allowed his request for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings and fixed 10-9-1974 for evidence of the objector. On 10-9-1974 the matter came up before the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar, Sri Phool Singh and the Naib Tahsildar appearing for the State raised objections contending that O. P. Saini should not be permitted to adduce any evidence in the case. According to them S.D.O. (R) had no jurisdiction to make the order dated 22-8-1974, impleading O. P. Saini as a party to these proceedings. Moreover O. P. Saini was in effect raising a dispute about title which could not be decided by the authorities under the Ceiling Act. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar came to the conclusion that Sri O. P. Saini had no locusstand to challenge or make a counter claim with respect to the rights and shares of the objector Phool Singh. Accordingly, he rejected the application of the petitioner seeking permission to lead evidence in the ceiling proceedings.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-1974 passed by the Addi tional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar, the petitioner challeng ed it by way of revision before District Judge Saharanpur. District Judge Saharanpur held that the revision application was not maintainable and rejected it by his order dated 20-9-1974. The Petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 10- 9-1974 and 20-9-1974 mentioned, above. However, in the meanwhile the Prescribed Authority had disposed of the Ceiling case by its order dated 16th October 1974 and had declared certain land as surplus land of Phool Singh (father of the Petitioner). The petitioner thereafter moved an application for amendment of the writ petition and challenged the validity of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16th October 1974, as well.;