K.P.Singh - (1.) THESE two writ petitions have been directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Gorakhpur dated 21-12-82 in Misc. Case No. 423 of 1982, Ram Das Jalan v. State of U. P. and others.
(2.) EXCESS vacant land of the petitioner Ram Das Jalan under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was declared by the appellate court through its order dated 30-9-1982 as is evident from Annexure ' 1 ' attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order in appeal the petitioner Ram Das Jalan had filed an application for reviewing the order dated 30th September, 1982 under section 45 of the above mentioned Act. The State of U. P. contested the application. The District Judge through the impugned judgment dated 20th December, 1982 allowed the review application and remanded case to the Competent Authority for determining the excess vacant land held by the petitioner Ram Das Jalan. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner Ram Das Jalan has contended that the appellate court has failed to make an observation in its judgment about consideration of the effect of transfer executed by the petitioner and it has also been stressed that the ceiling authorities have erred in determining the existence of the vacant land, therefore, the competent authority should be asked to re-determine the effect of transfer executed by the petitioner and the extent of vacant land held by him. The State of U. P. has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Ram Das Jalan. The learned counsel for the State has contended before me regarding its Writ Petition No. 3693 of 1983 mentioned above that the appellate court has patently erred in allowing the review application filed by the petitioner Ram Das Jalan as the perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that there did not exist any ground mentioned under section 45 of the Act. According to the learned counsel the learned appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the review petition filed by the petitioner Ram Das Jalan.
(3.) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In my opinion both the writ petitions have no legs to stand. As regards petition no. 398 of 1983 Ram Das Jalan v. State of U. P. and others it is sufficient to observe that the effect of transfer executed by the petitioner had been considered by the appellate court in paragraph 7 of its judgment dated 30th September, 1982. In review petition the remand has not been made to consider the effect of the transfer of land by the petitioner, therefore, I think it would be too late in the day to permit the petitioner to re-agitate the question of transfer of land executed by the petitioner.;