- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel repre senting the respondents.
(2.) PERUSED the record. In the proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 25-1-1976 declared an area of 24 Big has 13 Biswas recorded as agricultural holding in the name of Hublal son of Janaki to be surplus. "the aforesaid order indicates that the notice in respect of the proceedings had been served on Hublal on 7-1-1976 who had neither filed any objec tion nor had appeared seeking any further time to file the same. Thereafter Smt. Sheela Devi one of the petitioners claiming to be a tenure-holder filed an appeal along with an ap plication seeking condonation of delay in filing the same. The appellate authority rejected the said application and dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 2-2-1985, observing that the appellant should have first moved the Prescribed Authority and should have approached the appellate court thereafter. It was observed that in stead of approaching the regular forum she had jumped to the appellate court which was not justified but it was left open to her to approach the Prescribed. Authority for the redressed of her grievan ces directing the prescribed authority to consider the matter sympathetically.
(3.) THE petitioners thereafter moved an application on 18-9-1985 seeking recall of the order dated 25-1- 1976. In the af fidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application, it was asserted that Hublal had executed a sale-deed in respect of his half share in the land in dispute vide the sale-deed dated 21-2- 1972 in favour of Smt. Dev Kali, Smt. Shyam Kali, Smt. Ram Rati, Smt. Sheela Devi and Smt. Subhraji wife of Shiv Kumar and had delivered pos session to the transferees who were con tinuing to be in exclusive possession over the same. It was asserted that Hublal had no right, title or interest left in the land in dispute and the holdings belonging to the objectors had been declared to be surplus treating the same to be belonging to Hublal. It was asserted that the objectors came to know of the order declaring thp land in dispute as surplus on 1 -9-1983. THE true copies of the aforesaid applications filed by Smt Sheela Devi and Smt. Sukhraji have been annexed as An-nexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition, alongwith the copies of the affidavits filed in support thereof. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 6-3-1986 dismissed the aforesaid applications being of the view that there could be no justification for affording an opportunity to file an objec tion as prayed for as the final orders declar ing the land in dispute surplus had already been passed on 25-1-1976.;