AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 276 wordsU.C. Srivastava, J.
The orders passed by the District Judge and the prescribed authority in the proceedings arising out of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are the subject matter of challenge in� this writ petition. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was allowed and it was held that his appeal was maintainable. The matter went before the District Judge again, who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the exparte order, stating that he was not aware of the proceedings. This application was also rejected. From the record it appears that the processserver reported that the petitioner was out and was to return in a week''s time, even then on 20.3.74 a notice was affixed at his door which was witnessed by the two persons. When it was reported that the petitioner had gone out and was likely to come back within a week, there was no occasion for the process server to effect the service by affixation and as such the service cannot be deemed to be sufficient.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.9.75 contained in annexure 2 and the order dated 22.8.80 contained in annexure 4, passed by the prescribed authority and the District Judge respectively, are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to restore back the case to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.
(Petition allowed)