- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioners of both the writ petitions are assailing the validity of the order dated 31. 12. 1996 passed by Prescribed Authority in pro ceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and as affirmed in Appeal by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur on 15. 12. 1998.
(2.) BRIEF fact as are reflected from the pleadings as set out are that proceed ings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were undertaken by issuing notice to Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Awadhesh Saran R/o Village Mohammadpur, Tappa Biraicha Pargana Haveli Tehsil Sadar District Maharajganj on 7. 3. 1981 wherein 18. 20 acres of land was proposed to be left out and rest of the land 43. 85 acres was proposed to be declared surplus. On 30. 4. 1988 proposed determination was finalised by the Prescribed Authority, there after an application was moved for setting aside said order by Girishpati Tripathi, Rakeshpati Tripathi and others and second application was moved by Saraswati Devi herself. Both the restoration applications were accepted and proceedings in question were restored and ex-parte order dated 30. 4. 1988 was set aside and thereafter on 31. 12. 1996 the matter was reheard and earlier order was maintained declaring 43:85 acres of land as surplus. Against the said order separate appeal in question had been preferred. Said appeal in question has been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State-respondents and therein proceedings undertaken have been sought to be justified. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9616 of 1999 an application has also been -moved on behalf of subsequent allottee Sahati and others.
(3.) AFTER pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged in both the writ petitions, both the writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. Sri P. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehe mence that in the present case proceedings. in question is vitiated as entire pro ceedings have proceeded on the presumption that entire holding belonged to Smt. Saraswati Devi whereas there were other tenure holders whose names were duly recorded as such claim of each and every recorded tenure holder also ought to have been examined within the scope and ambit of the provisions as contained under UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and determination ought to have been done accordingly, and recorded tenure holders have not been issued notices and their claim has not been genuinely considered, and has been non-suited on surmises and conjectures as such order in question are liable to be quashed.;