Baia Prasad and Ors. vs State of U.P.& Ors.

I.M. Quddusi, J.—Heard Sri VK.S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate and the learned standing Counsel.

The brief facts of the case are that one Sukh Deo Prasad, who was tenure holder of the land in question died, leaving behind him his widow, Smt. Bira Bai on 21072. Prior to this a family settlement between Sukhdeo Prasad and the petitioner was executed before the Notary public on 30969. Thereafter on 21771 names of the petitioners mutated in the revenue record according to the family statement regarding Bhumidhari. Thereafter consolidation operation was started and the family settlement dated 30969 was approved in consolidation proceeding on 101075. Thereafter in the year 1978 notice under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) was issued against Sukhdeo Prasad under Section 10 (2) of the Act.

Thereafter vide judgement and order dated 27478 the prescribed authority declared 179 Bigha 9 Biswa land as surplus with Sukhdeo Prasad. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the District Judge, Banda which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2879 directing the prescribed authority to issue fresh notice according to law to the legal heirs of the deceased tenureholder and to determine surplus land, if any, according to law. Thereafter the prescribed authority issued fresh notice to the petitioners on 68:83. Thereafter the petitioners were directed to produce their evidence on 21984. But on that date the prescribed authority was not holding the Court and was absent and on 5.1084 the prescribed authority held that Court ajid took up the case of the petitioners and closed the evidence and fixed for 121084 for arguments judgment and on that date again the prescribed au thority given exparte judgment repeating his earlier judgment dated 27478 which was set aside in appeal. Thereafter on 191084 the petitioners filed application for recalling of the order dated 121084, but the same was rejected. Even no counter affidavit was filed. Thereafter an appeal was filed which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 75/1984 before, the District Judge which was allowed partly and the case was remanded for deciding the nature of the plots whether irrigated or not according to the provisions of the Section 4A of the Act.

Against this judgment and order as well as against the order of the prescribed authority dated 121084 in Case No. 55, �h i'' v si; petition has been filed.

Since the prescribed authority had decided the case ex parte in which he has held that no evidence was received by the tenureholder while in fact some evidence was produced by the tenureholders and also the tenureholders could not get the opportunity of hearing, I think it would be proper if the prescribed authority may grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then "decide the matter afresh.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority and of the District Judge passed in Appeal are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the mater afresh independently without being influenced by the earlier order passed in this regard.He shall provide an opportunity to the parties concerned to lead additional evidence, if any and thereafter opportunity of hearing will be provided and the matter will be decided. This will be done as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition stands allowed to the above extent.

There is no order as to costs.