Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioner no. 1 which is a registered/charitable trust is governed by a board of trustees with its Chairman as Chandra Kumar Jain. Pradeep Jain, the treasurer of the Trust has been arrayed as petitioner no. 2. The trust owns in village Sher Nagar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Muzaffarnagar, the Bhumidhari plots No. 1049(2-3-0), 1050(1-17-0), 1051(0-4-0) and 1052 (0-17-0) and had an ownership of a total area of five bighas and one biswa of land.
(2.) Even though Sri Chandra Kumar Jain was only a Chairman of the Trust a notice was issued to him to explain as to why the land held by him be not declared surplus of the ceiling limits and in the notice even the plots which were owned by the trust were taken into account to calculate the holdings of Chandra Kumar Jain. Upon coming to know that the petitioners' land was also being taken into account while calculating the ceiling limits of the holdings of Chandra Kumar Jain, the petitioners filed an objection which was rejected on 10.9.1987, which required the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court. It was numbered as Writ Petition No. 17950 of 1987 (Gulshan Dharmarth Trust and others Vs. The State of U.P. & Others). The writ petition was allowed on 5.4.1996 and it was directed that if the land of the petitioner was to be taken into account then a notice was also to be given to it. A true copy of the judgement and order dated 5.4.1996 as was passed by this Court is reproduced here as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner is placing reliance on the case Shantanu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1979 AllLJ 1174. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Gulshan Dharmarth Trust (Regd.) 45 B, New Mandi Muzaffarnagar is the legal entity which owns the plot nos. 1049 (2-3-0), 1050(1-17-0), 1051 (0-4-0) and 1052(0-17-0) of khata no. 150 and in that capacity the trust must be given notice in any ceiling proceeding initiated over these lands. In reply the learned Standing Counsel has urged that Chandra Kumar Jain was the managing trustee through whom the trust was represented in the revenue record as well as in the law court, as is the petitioner's case hars, so notice given to Chandra Kumar Jain is sufficient compliance of the law. For appreciating the argument the amended notice was perused. This notice has been given to Chandra Kumar Jain S/o Gulshan Rai Jain, 106 B, New Mandi Muzaffarnagar showing him as tenure-holder. There is no mention that this Chandra Kumar Jain is representing the Gulshan Dharmarth Trust, which is the legal body. So notice under the requirements of law must be given to the legal body owning the property which is sought to be shown as excess land and his objection must be considered. The impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to object in the proceeding is against the provisions of law. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Prescribed Authority will give notice to the petitioner Gulshan Dharmarth Trust and consider his objections and then pass order according to law."
(3.) Thereafter a notice was issued to the officials of the petitioner on 13.8.2001 which was replied to by the petitioner on 16.9.2002. The objection/reply of the petitioner was rejected and some land of the Trust was declared surplus. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.;