B.L. Loomba, J. - (1.) SHORT question of law raised in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, Shri Vidur Sewa Ashram, Daranagar Ganj, district Bijnor, claiming to be a Society formed for charitable purposes and registered under the Societies Registration, Act, is whether it was incumbent upon the prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 to issue notice under rule 8 of the U.P. imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961, in respect of the plots of which the petitioner claims to be the tenure holder. According to the allegations made in the petition Plots Nos. 513 and 514 were purchased from one Mahavir Saran through sale deed dated 14.4.1961 and the petitioners name was mutated over these plots on the basis of its transfer deed. Plots Nos. 424, 444, 445, 446 and 447 are said to have been purchased from one Harbansa through sale deed dated 30.11.1961 and the petitioner's name was mutated over these plots also under orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bijnor, dated 19.4.1963. Plots Nos. 510/2, 512, 516, 517, 518, 522, and 523 were given in exchange of plots Nos. 424, 444, 445, 446 and 447 and this exchange was also given effect to in the revenue papers and the petitioner's name was recorded in the Khatauni right from 1370 fasli. It is stated that by some mistake the petitioner's name disappeared and the name of respondent No. 3 was recorded over these plots after 1370 Fasli. The petitioner claims to be sirdar in respect of plot No. 27 and its name is said to have continued throughout in the revenue record. The Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 initiated proceedings against respondent No. 3 Guru Grih Vidyalaya, Daranagar, district Bijnor, and it is then that the petitioner came to know of the wrong entry in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of the plots in question and accordingly the petitioner took steps to have the mistake corrected and succeeded in obtaining a favourable order on 23.6.76 for mutation of its name from Sub Divisional Officer which was actually given effect to on 28.6.76. But in the meantime the Prescribed Authority despite objections from the respondent No. 3 proceeded with the case and eventually passed the impugned order dated 30.3.1976 declaring the plots in question as surplus land under the said Act, treating the respondent No. 3 to be tenure holder of these plots.
(2.) THE petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner being the tenure holder of the plots in question and there being sufficient material on record to make out this position clear; the Prescribed Authority violated the mandatory requirements of issue of notice to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules and as such the impugned order dated 30.6.1976 is illegal, void and unenforceable and be quashed by issue of direction in the nature of writ of certiorari. The contest by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is mainly on the ground that the petitioner is the parent body and the respondent No. 3, an educational institution is the part of this parent body and further that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority and was not entitled to issue of the notice as claimed by it. The perusal of the affidavits exchanged between the parties and the contents of the statement of the Lekhpal recorded in the course of the proceedings on 28.6.1976, copy whereof has been annexed to the writ petition, would go to show that the name of the petitioner had been recorded as tenure holder but when it was deleted and the name of the respondent No. 3 was recorded, the petitioners application for correction of records was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23.3.1976 and in pursuance of that order the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record on 26.6.1976, yet the prescribed Authority did not consider it necessary and expedient to issue notice under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules.
(3.) RELIANCE has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shantanu Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and others : A.I.R. 1979 Alld. p. 564. The point directly involved in that case was whether the said Rule 8 imposes a statutory duty on the Prescribed Authority to issue a notice to the petitioner, who claimed to be a transferee of the land involved in the matter. Reference was made to the proviso to the said rule requiring that where statement in C.L.H. Form 3 also includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon such other person, A notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the service of the notice why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. The name of the petitioner in that case was recorded in the revenue papers on the basis of the sale deed and it was held that he was a person in whose name some part of the land was believed by the Prescribed Authority to be ostensibly held. It was observed that the Prescribed Authority prepares the statement on the basis of the revenue records and if from the revenue records or from other information the Prescribed Authority comes to know that the land included in the statement in C.L.H. Form includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed Authority is bound to serve notice on such person. Issue of such notice is preliminary to the acquisition of jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and on that basis the order against the ostensible holder was quashed.;