Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.7.1983 whereby the objection, of the petitioner has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the proceedings for determination of surplus land were taken against the petitioner under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960. The Prescribed Authority declared 12.86 acre as surplus land. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3353 of 1976. He also filed an application for interim stay order. The Court granted interim stay staying the dispossession of the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner deposits the damages at the rate of Rs. 300 per acre per annum. The petitioner deposited Rs. 3,900 with the Prescribed Authority on 7.10.1976 and again the same amount on 12.4.1978. The writ petition was dismissed by the Court on 17.10.1978. The petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also prayed for grant of interim stay order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the petitioner to furnish the security of three year average mesne profits to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner deposited Rs.. 16.000 with the Prescribed Authority in accordance with the direction of the Court. The petitioner was issued a notice by the Prescribed Authority to pay the amount of damages. The petitioner filed objection and in that objection, he stated that he had deposited Rs. 23.800 in pursuance of the order of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. His contention was that the damages may be calculated in accordance with Rules 18 and 18A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules. 1961. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection taking the view that as regards the amount of damages which was deposited by the petitioner cannot be refunded as it was deposited in pursuance of the order of the Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of damages has to be ascertained under Rules 18 and 18A which read as under : "18. (1) As soon as the Collector takes or ts deemed to have taken possession of any land under Section 14. he shall inform the Prescribed Authority concerned about the date of taking over such possession by sending a copy of C.L.H. Form 7 in respect of each tenure-holder. (2) The Prescribed Authority shall, thereupon, determine the amount of damages for use and occupation payable by each tenure-holder in accordance with Rule 18A. 18A. The amount of damages for use and occupation referred to in Rule 18 shall; subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) in accordance with the following principles : (a) Except as provided in clause (d). damages shall be ascertained in respect of each crop (Kharif and Rabi) separately. (b) For the first five crops commencing from the Kharif of 1380 Fasli, damages for each crop shall be equal to the annual land revenue calculated at sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (c) For the remaining crops commencing from Rabi of 1382 Fasli, damages for each crop shall be equal to 61/4 times of the annual land revenue calculated at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (d) in respect of a grove-land damages for each Fasli year shall be equal to five times of the annual land revenue calculated at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (e) Damages shall not exceed the amount payable to the tenure-holder concerned under Chapter III of the Act if the possession of the land in respect whereof such amount is payable was taken under Section 14 (8) before October 10. 1975. (f) The aggregate damages in respect of the crops grown during the first five crops referred to in clause (b) shall not exceed the amount payable to the tenure-holder concerned under Chapter III of the Act." Rule 18 is applicable when the possession is taken by the Collector or is deemed to have been taken by him under Section 14 of the Act and still if a person remains in possession, the amount of damages will be determined as provided under Rule 18A. In case, however, the tenure-holder obtains an order of the Court to remain in possession in pursuance of the order of the Court on certain terms and conditions, the amount is fixed by the Court while imposing, the terms and conditions on the petitioner to remain in possession, that shall be taken as an amount which has been ascertained by the Court as damages. It is open to the Court while disposing of the writ petition finally to pass an order rin respect of the amount which has been deposited but in case the Court does not pass any order, the amount shall be taken to have been deposited taking as amount of damages fixed by the Court while granting the stay order. The petitioner had deposited the amount in pursuance of the order of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is now not open to urge that the amount of damages should have been ascertained afresh in accordance with Rule 18A of 1961 Rules.;