Jagannath Prasad; Ramesh Chandra and Ors. vs State of U.P.& Ors.; State of U.P.& Ors.

Anjani Kumar, J.—Since the above mentioned two writ petitions filed by the petitioners (tenureholders) relate to the same facts and raise the same question of law, hence the same are being decided by this common judgment.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11121995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, whereby, Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31st January, 1994 and order dated 23rd September, 1995. The order dated 31st January, 1994 proceeds to decide the proceedings under the provision of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and the land of the petitioners (tenureholders) were declared to be the surplus land. The order dated 23rd September, 1995 whereby application of the petitioner (tenure holder) for recalling the order dated 31st January, 1994 has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed after considerable delay. Reason for rejection to recall the order dated 31st January, 1994 was that the same has been filed beyond time. The petitioner has filed an affidavit giving reasons but yet Prescribed Authority has not adjudicated upon as to whether this reason is sufficient or not and if not sufficient why.

Apart from the above proceeding earlier, the proceedings went up to the level of the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by this order dated 3rd February, 1981 remanded back the matter to the Prescribed Authority. No proceedings appears to be initiated and taken pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 3rd February, 1981 nor the order dated 3rd February, 1981 is set aside by the Appellate Authority or Court. In this view of matter also there was no justification for passing any order.

Learned Standing Counsel also argued that the order of the Appellate Authority seems to be justified as the authority has not committed any mistake in refusing to recall the order.

To my mind when the proceeding came to the level of the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order dated 321981 directed that the matter be decided afresh, the authority should have proceeded from that level and there was no justification or necessity for issuing any other notice or for passing the orders dated 3111994 and thereafter the order dated 2391995.

Apart from the above it is in the interest of justice that land of the petitioner (tenure holder) should be declared surplus only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, it is in the interest of justice that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11121999, the order of Prescribe Authority dated 31st January, 1994 and 23rd September,1995 be quashed. The matter be decided afresh in accordance with law and as per direction issued by order of Appellate Authority dated 3rd February, 1981. Since the proceedings are pending for a long time, it is directed to the Prescribed Authority to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid directions the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 321981, 2391995 and 3111994 are hereby quashed.