- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ, order. or direction in the nature of Certiorari guashing the judgement and order dated 28th April, 1982 passed by the District Judge, Fatehpur and the judgement and order dated 28th December, 1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceil ing on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. THE impugned orders have been passed on the application filed under Section 13-Aof the said Act by the petitioner. This is third round of litigation in the High Court. Shri Raghuraj Singh, father of the petitioner, was the original tenure hdder towhom a notice under the unamended provisions of the Act under Section 10 (2) was issued declaring 1. 04 acre of land as surplus. After the amendment of the Act, reducing the ceiling area a second notice was issued to Raghuraj Singh and an area of 7. 03 acres was proposed as surplus. No objection was filed by Shri Raghuraj Singh and the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 17. 1. 1976 de-clared 7. 03 acres as surplus. Notification under Section 14 of the Act was issued thereafter. An application to set aside the said order was filed by the petitioner as in the meantime on 23rd of November, 1977 Raghuraj Singh had expired. On 31 st of March, 1978 the said application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. The order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge by the judgement dated 19. 7. 1978. It was further confirmed by this Court as the writ petition No. 6859 of 1978 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 11. 8. 1978. This was the first round of litigation.
(3.) THERE after; the petitioner filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act claiming reduction of area due to the ceiling operation in the village on the plea a that in the consolidation proceedings the tenure holder (petitioner) has been found to be entitled to a lesser area than the one with respect of which the ceiling of the petitioner's father was determined. Jhe said. application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on 29. 2. 1979. The District Judge also dismissed the appeal by the order dated 13. 8. 1979, filed by the petitioner. The order of the District Judge was subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 9676 of 1979. The said writ petition after hearing the Counsel for the parties was allowed by the judgment and order dated 26th of November, 1980 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with the direction that the ceiling authority will give effect to the reduction caused in area in consolidation to the petitioner. This was the sec-ond round of litigation in the Court. To give effect to the above judgment and order of this Court, the Prescribed Authority reinitiated proceeding for determination of the ceiling area of the petitioner. On the basis of the materia? produced by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 28th December, 1981 (Annexure-3) found that during the consolidation operation, area of the plot Nos. 954, 1760, 3035, 3335, 3110, 3356, 336, 3757 and 3767 have been reduced by 4-2-0. The reduction of the area was confirmed by the report of the Consolidation Officer, It reached to the conclu-sion that si?ce the petitioner has half share and there has been total reduction of 1-7-10 in the area which comes to 0. 35 acres. By giving the benefit of said reduc tion in the area in irrigated term, the petitioner has 1. 44 acres land as surplus. The petitioner has no grievance with this part of the order of the Prescribed Au thority.;