- (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-1-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was held to be not maintainable by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 26-11-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the petition, Now the petitioner has come in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing counsel has made his submissions.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court was wrong in thinking that the land, which had been declared as surplus in the earlier ceiling proceedings, could not be reconsidered in the subsequent ceiling proceedings from which this petition has arisen.
(3.) It seems that in the earlier ceiling proceedings, some land was declared as surplus. Thereafter, in view of the amendment of the law, another notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued but in the subse quent notice it was clearly given out that an additional land was to be declar ed as surplus over and above that land which had already been declared surplus in the earlier ceiling proceedings.;