Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) Since subject matter of these two petitions are the same orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to ''Ceiling Act') in respect of the same land, with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, they are being decided by the common judgment and order.
(2.) Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 45 (Ceiling) of 2000 and Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner in Writ Petition No.135 (Ceiling) of 2003. Learned Standing Counsel has also been heard on behalf of the State-respondents.
(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 30.06.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority as also the order dated 13.06.2000 passed by the appellate court are absolutely unlawful and in fact the same run contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of Baboo Ram vs. First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basti and others, reported in 1978 (4) Allahabad Law Report, 528. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 19.09.1978 under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereby Smt Asha Devi-petitioner of Writ Petition No.135 (Ceiling) of 2003 was declared to be co-sharer along with Akshaibar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.45 (Ceiling) of 2000, will not amount to transfer in terms of the provisions contained in Section 5 (7) of the Ceiling Act and as a matter of fact, the same is not covered by the First explanation appended to Section 5 (6) of the Ceiling Act, however the learned courts below have completely ignored the said provisions and have erred in law in declaring the land as surplus.;