Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) After the petitioner received a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, ('the Ceiling Act, 1960'), he replied on 17.8.1999. However, after considering the objections of the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority on 18.9.2002 held that the petitioner was having surplus land to the extent of 1.662 hectares in Khata No. 242 gram- Chingrawathi, Pargana & Tehsil- Syana, District- Bulandshahar.
(2.) Upon appeal being filed by the petitioner, the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18.9.2002 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed on 16.1.2002. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. Late Hansraj Singh had various land holdings in various Khatas in village Chingrawathi and in village Vasudevpur. During the life time of Hansraj Singh, a notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, was issued which was decided on 22.9.1976 by the Prescribed Authority, which order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10.3.1977. The orders passed vis-a-vis, the notice issued to the petitioner's predecessor in interest thereafter attained finality, as they were never challenged and it was established that he had no surplus land. During his life time Hansraj Singh had gifted in 1970 some properties of his to his grand-son Sanjay Kumar and daughter Bhavtidevi. When the Ceiling Authorities decided the case of Hansraj Singh they had admittedly decided it on the basis of the land which was held by Hansraj Singh on the date when notices under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, were issued to him. After the decision of the Prescribed Authority on 22.9.1976, the father of the petitioner, Hansraj Singh had, also on 24.10.1976, willed some property to his wife Ram Kali (mother of the petitioner). When notice was issued to the petitioner he had specifically stated that, in fact, the holding as was possessed by his father was substantially reduced owning to the fact that the mother of the petitioner had also inherited certain portions of holding of Hansraj Singh. Therefore, he had submitted before the Prescribed Authority that under no circumstances could he have had more land than his father had on the date when the Prescribed Authority had decided the case of his father on 22.9.1976. However, the petitioner's case was disbelieved and the Prescribed Authority on 8.9.2002 held that the petitioner was holding surplus land to the extent of 1.662 hectares in Gata No. 242, Gram Chingrawathi and Pargana & Tehsil Syana, District- Bulandshahar. While deciding the case, vis-a-vis the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority held that because of the order dated 22.9.1976 it was only convenient to uphold the validity of the gift which the petitioner's father had made to the extent of 39 bighas in favour of his grand-son Sanjay Kumar and daughter Bhawti Devi. The Prescribed Authority also adjudicated on the will of Hansraj Singh which was dated 24.10.1976 and observed that it was of no use as it came into existence after 24.1.1971.;