T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) HARNAM Singh was the original tenure holder of plots Nos. 33 -M and 73 -M situated in village Ram Nagar, Pargana Palia, Tahsil Nighason, district Lakhimpur Kheri. On 14 -6 -71 Harnam Singh executed two sale deeds, one in favour of Milkha Singh Petitioner No. 2 and the other in favour of Labh Singh his own son. Again on 12 -9 -74 he executed another sale deed in favour of Pooran Kaur, Petitioner No. 1. All these three sale deeds were thus executed after 24 -1 -71. It appears that certain land of Harnam Singh has been declared surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It further appears that substantial part of the land which was transferred by Harnam Singh by virtue of the three sale deeds has been declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) THE Petitioners feeling aggrieved by this order have impugned the same by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31 -1 -76 (Annexure 6) and the appellate order dated 30 -5 -75 (Annexure 7) on grounds inter alia that there is violation of the second proviso of Article 31A of the Constitution inasmuch as the land in personal cultivation of the Petitioners is being taken away by the opposite party without payment of any compensation and that the order of the Prescribed Authority adversely affected their rights. We heard the learned Government Advocate before any notice was issued to the opposite parties 1 to 4.
(3.) THE learned Advocate General submitted that neither the tenure -holder, nor any person claiming under him shall be entitled to file a suit in the revenue court, or maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the order declaring certain land surplus. The contention was that the entire Act including the Amending Act has been placed under the IX Schedule of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it is no more open to the Petitioner to contend that their land is being acquired under an invalid law; hence it was urged that the ground taken by the Petitioners that their land was being acquired in violation of the provisions of Article 31A of the Constitution had no substance or validity.;