- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. Perused the record.
(2.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Aligarh dated 26-3-1983 acting as the appellate authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 made an application under Section 26 to the competent authority for permission to transfer the land in dispute. The competent authority rejected the said application by its order dated 19-1-1983 and further directed to issue notice to respondent No. 2 under Section 6 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of competent authority the petitioner filed an appeal before respon dent No. 1. The said appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was ultimately allowed by the District Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 26-3-1983. Learned Standing Counsel appear ing for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by respondent No. 2 for permission to transfer the land in dispute was illegal. The appellate authority acted in excess of his jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and permitting the respondent No. 2 to transfer the land in dispute. In support of his submission, learned standing Coun sel has also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of State of U. P v. Smt. Philips Mehrotra and others, 1980 AWC 473 (DB) and State of U. P. v. Prahalad Singh andothers, 1983 ALJ 102.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions and decision of this Court, it is clear that the person holding the land beyond ceiling limit is not entitled to made an application under Section 26 of the Act, as under the said section only a person holding the land within the ceiling limit as to give a notice to the competent authority, intimating the said authority of his intention to transfer his land. In the present case, the competent authority has rejected the application of the contesting respondent on the ground that he was having land beyond his ceiling limit and provision of Section 5 (3) of the Act, which provides absolute prohibition, were at tracted, as the finding recorded by the competent authority has not been reversed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority merely observed that respondent No. 2 applied for transfer of land and, therefore, there was no justifica tion for rejecting the application by the competent authority. The approach of the District Judge is apparently erroneous and illegal. He had to see as to whether the application, filed by the respondent No. 2 was legally maintainable or not. As the application filed by the respondent No. 2 itself was not maintainable there was no justification for the District Judge to allow the appeal. Respondent No. 2 was admit tedly holding land beyond ceiling limit. The competent authority was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application and the judgment and order passed by the ap pellate authority, is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26-3-1983 passed by the appellate authority, is quashed and that of competent authority dated 19-1-1983 is restored. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;