K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of District Judge, Basti, dated 23-12-76, in Misc. Ceiling Appeal No. 844 of 1975 - Sakseria Inter College v. State of U. P.
(2.) The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 14 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (prior to amendment of 1976). It is noteworthy that the disputed plots were shown as surplus area of one Jaidev Shukla (opp. party No. 2 in the writ petition). The petitioner had filed an objection on 15-12-63 under Section 14 (3) of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner had alleged that the aforesaid Jaidev Shukla had no concern with the disputed plots and the petitioners were Sirdars of the same. The prescribed authority through its order dated 16-5-64 had observed that the land may be settled with the petitioner. Thereafter some other persons also filed objection against the order dated 16-5-64 which was dismissed on 8-3-65. It has been alleged that thereafter the disputed plots were settled with the petitioners. In a proceeding under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act against the petitioner it was decided that there was no surplus area with the petitioner as is evident from the order dated 17-3-75. In the meantime the aforesaid Jaidev Shukla moved an application on 12-5-72 for vacating the order dated 16-5-64 whereby the disputed plots were to be -settled with the petitioner. To similar effect the State also filed an application on 3-10-73 that the order dated 16-5-64 should be vacated. The prescribed authority through its order dated 30-10-75 set aside the earlier order dated 16-5-64 and thereafter abated the proceedings under Section 14 (3) of the Ceiling Act started at the instance of the petitioner. In appeal, the same order was confirmed through the impugned judgment dated 23-12-76. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 23-12-76 the petitioner has come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have acted illegally in abating the proceeding under Section 14 (3) of the Ceiling Act in the circumstances of the present case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the proceeding pending before the relevant authority was only for setting aside the order passed on the application of the 4 petitioner under Section 14 (3) of the Act. In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that only proceeding for setting' aside the order dated 16-5-64 should have been abated.;