M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960,
(2.) The facts, in brief, are these; The petitioner was earlier issued notice under Section 10 (2) and she filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 25th Jan. 1974. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was decided on 13th March, 1975. It was partly allowed. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 50827 of 1975 and the same was allowed by K. N. Seth, J. on 10th Jan. 1978. In the meanwhile the Prescribed Authority issued a second notice under the amended provisions of the Act and the same was served on the petitioner on 30th Oct. 1975. By the second notice a larger area of land was proposed to be declared as surplus. The petitioner again filed objections, and, inter alia, one of her objections was that there was no occasion for issuing the second notice and it had been illegally issued to her. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the said contention and decided the objections by his order dated 30th Oct. 1976. A true copy of the said order is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority rejected the contention of the petitioner in respect of the validity of the second notice on the ground that Section 38-B of the Act enabled him to reopen and decide all the contentions without any hindrance on the basis of the earlier order passed under the earlier ceiling proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was partly allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 26th Mar. 1977, a true copy whereof is annexure 2 to the petition. Now, the petitioner has come up in the instant petition.
(3.) The petitioner has stated in para 10 of the petition as follows:- "That the petitioner had challenged the validity of the 2nd notice before District Judge in ground No. 19 and pressed that point at the time of argument, but he has not decided the point and not said even a word about it.";