- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14th April 1983 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nainital. Prayer for mandamus of this Court has also been made directing the respond ents not to proceed against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that according to the petitioner, father of respondent nos. 1 and 2 Sri C. H. Parsons was the original tenure holder of the land in dis pute measuring 1709 Bigha and situated in village Vikrampur, Tahsil Bazpur, Dis trict Nainital and respondent nos. 1 and 2 succeeded him after his death in the month of November 1967. Before the Prescribed Authority, Ceiling Case No. 51/66 of 1974-75 proceeded against the petitioner no. 2, while Ceiling Case No. 51/67 of 1974-75 was registered against the petitioner no. 1. Notice under Sec tion 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 separately to show cause as to why the disputed land be not declared surplus. They contested the proceedings and as serted that they are not tenure holders of the disputed land, as on 8th June, 1973, they had no right in the land in dispute. The father of the petitioners Sri C. H. Parsons was the tenure holder of the disputed land in the year 1967. Af ter his death, they succeeded their fa ther and their names were entered in the revenue records. Subsequently, in the year 1968-69, they executed agreement for sale in favour of the persons, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 33. The respondent nos. 3 to 33 also filed their objections in three sets. They asserted that they came into possession of the disputed land by way of registered sale deeds executed in their favour af ter 24th January, 1971 and prior to that the land was given to them in the year 1969 on Pattas. After coming into force of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, they ac quired Bhumidhari rights. They asserted that the objectors were in possession of the land since May 1969 and they had been cultivating the same. They also contended that the sale transfers were made in their favour for adequate con sideration and they were genuine. They also contended that they are not family members of the tenure holders. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Pre scribed Authority. The Prescribed Au thority after perusing the evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclu sion that the alleged Pattas were not reg istered and certified by the Supervisor Kanungo, hence they cannot be relied upon and no benefits can be given to the objectors. The Prescribed Authority also observed that the tenure holders could not prove that they had any right to ex ecute Pattas in favour of the objectors. The Prescribed Authority however held that the sale transfers were not made for adequate consideration or in good faith and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds, i. e. Rs. 2,000/- per acre does not seem to be proper market value of the land. The prescribed Authority ig nored the sale deeds and declared the land surplus as mentioned in the order dated 29-9-1976. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Kashipur, in the aforesaid two ceiling cases, as many as 64 Ceiling Appeals were preferred before the III Additional District Judge, Nainital. The learned Ad ditional District Judge has heard all the appeals together. After perusing the evi dence and hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court has allowed all the appeals vide order dated 14-4-1983 holding that the disputed sale transfers were bona fide and for adequate con siderations.
(3.) DISSATISFIED with the judgment and order dated 14-4-1983 passed by the appellate court, the State has pre ferred the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the notices given to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were valid and the finding of the appellate court to the contrary is illegal. It has also been con tended that the sale deeds were in con travention of the provisions of Section 154 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, there fore, they were liable to be ignored. Ave heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment and order dated 14-4-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nainital.;