S.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order contained in Annexures 4 and 5 dated 15.5.1985 and 7.12.1987 passed by the Pre­scribed Authority and the Additional Commissioner respectively.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner through his servant was served with a notice under section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in re­spect of his holdings situated in villages Sisendi, Govindpur and Bhaundri, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow, in all measuring 98-15-18 shown to be irrigated in CLH form attached with the notice and 36-15-9 was proposed to be left with the petitioner out of his ceiling area and the rest was proposed to be declared as sur­plus. The petitioner filed objection against the said notice stating therein that the khasra plot No. 227 of village Sisendi is a tank on the spot whose total area is 96 Bigha 17 Biswa, out of which 29 Bigha 15 Biswa is in petitioner's name as he has only 1/3rd share in the said plot. The aforesaid plot is not fit for cultivation and is covered by water. The khasra plot No. 226 of the same village i.e. Sisendi measuring 28-3-18 is also a tank on the spot and remains full of water and no cultivation takes place on the same. Similar objection was raised in respect of khasra plot No. 1472 measuring 6 Bigha 17 Biswa being a tank on the spot and not fit for cultivation. The khasra plot No. 425 of village Bhaundri whose total area is 44 Bigha 13 Biswa is also a tank. Out of this plot, the petitioner holds only 25 Bigha 12 Biswa. It was asserted that this plot also remains under water and no culti­vation takes place on it. The plot No. 412 of the same village measuring 7 Bigha 10 Biswansi has wrongly been shown as irri­gated and is a tank on the spot and remains covered with water throughout the year. In the end, it was prayed that all these plots mentioned above remain covered under water and no cultivation takes place on the said plots and, therefore, they did not fall within the definition of land and as such are liable to be exempted from the opera­tion of the Act. The petitioner further stated in his objection that he had gifted 20 Bigha for the School in village Govindpur and the same is liable to be excluded. The Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 24.12.1974 decided the objection of the pe­titioner and treated the land mentioned above, shown as tank and covered under water as unirrigated, as surplus land.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 13 of the Act before the District Judge. The peti­tioner's brother Shri Surendra Kumar Bajpai also preferred an appeal. Both the ap­peals were allowed by the District Judge and the cases were remanded to the Pre­scribed Authority, Ceiling, for disposal of petitioner's objection, after giving them opportunity to produce such evidence as was necessary to support their case. After the remand of the case, a fresh notice dated 5.9.1975 was issued to the petitioner under section 10(2) of the Act for redetermination of the surplus land. The petitioner again filed objection stating therein the similar things as mentioned above and further stating that plots No. 1698, 1699, 1707, 1752, 1829, 1830, 1824, 1833, 1874 and 2086 of village Sisendi are unirrigated and not fit for growing two crops in a year and as such they cannot be treated irrigated. The documentary as well as oral evidence was adduced by the petitioner and thereafter the Prescribed Authority dismissed the ob­jection of the petitioner by means of order dated 30.10.1976. The petitioner again pre­ferred ar appeal under section 13 of the Act before the District Judge. The District Judge partly allowed the appeal by means of Judgment and order dated 11.4.1978. The petitioner felt that there was apparent error in the order of the learned District Judge and accordingly he preferred a review which was dismissed by means of order dated 25.9.1978. The petitioner challenged the above order of the learned District Judge by way of Writ Petition No. 69 of 1979 in this Court. Vide order dated 26.10.1978, the said writ petition was al­lowed by this Court and the order dated 15.9.1978 was set aside with the direction to the learned District Judge to decide the re­view afresh in accordance with law. The learned District Judge vide order dated 29.1.1982 allowed the review and sent the appeal for disposal to the Civil Judge, Malihabad, Lucknow. The Civil Judge, Malihabad allowed the appeal by means of order dated 31.10.1984 and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for redetermination of surplus land. The Prescribed Authority decided the case by means of order dated 10.5.1985 and held that plots No. 1698, 1699, 1707, 1752, 1830, 1833 and 2082 were irrigated. The petitioner again preferred an appeal under section 13 of the Act and the same was rejected by the Ad­ditional Commissioner of the Division by means of order dated 27.12.1987.;