SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner and Madho Giri were declared co-sharers as per the order dated 4.6.1971 of the Consolidation Officer. Initially a notice was issued only to the respondent no. 4 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and certain area from the holding of the respondent no. 4 was declared surplus on 30.6.1976, against which order the respondent no. 4 filed an appeal which was allowed in part and remanded on 14.3.1978. The petitioner who was employed in the Indian Army upon coming to know that the certain holding of the respondent no. 4 was declared surplus in which he was a co-sharer filed an appeal. The respondent no. 4 also filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. Both appeals were filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29.4.1985. However, the appeals of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were decided together and were dismissed on 18.8.1998 saying that the issue regarding notice not being served on the petitioner under Section 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') could have been raised at the very first instance before the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) The Appellate Court also observed that there was a possibility that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.6.1971 had been passed on the basis of a compromise for the purposes of defeating the objectives of the Act. Against the order passed in appeal, the petitioner filed a review application. The review application was also dismissed and it was held that the issue of notice which was raised at the appellate stage should have been raised in the first instance before the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and submits that, in fact, the issue regarding notice should have been raised before the Prescribed Authority and not before the Appellate Authority.;