Mahfuzul Rahman v. State Of U.P And Others Opp. Parties.

U.C Srivastava, J.:— The orrler passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting his Objection under Section 11(2) of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. Notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to opposite party No. 4 father of of the petitioner, who filed an objection against the same but as area of 9.753 a.?res of land was declared as surplus land.

3. The appeal filed by the opposite party No. 4 was also dismissed and ihe writ petition against the same was also dismissed on August 7, 1978. On September 26, 1978, the petitioner alongwith brother and sister, filed ???-jection under Section 11(2) of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on the ground that they were tenure-holder of few plots vide registered sale-deed dated September 8, 1967 executed by their father and they were in its possession. Certified copy oi the registered sale deed was filed. But ???t was found that the name of the transferee was not mutated in the records. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the objections filed ??? the petitioner on the ground that objections were not maintainable as they were not recorded tenure holder, consequ-entiy no notice under the Rules was required. Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority a number of appeals were filed. The petitioner also tiled an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on the ground that it was highly belated and the explanation for delay was not acceptable. The appellate authority found that in the case before the prescribed authority, against father, Pairvi was done by the petitioner and on July 8, 1972 and December 28, 1976 he signed the order-sheet, although on behalf of the petitioner it was denied that the same bears his signatures. The Additional District Judge rejected this plea on the ground that the same was not acceptable and believable as Fazal Ali could not have forged the signatures of his son. Even if it could be said that the son appeared for and on behalf of the father and signed the order-sheet that could not be taken to mean that, in fact, the interest of the son was involved in it and the sun was going to lose the land over which he was claiming rights on the basis of the sale-deed. Father was contesting the case and prayer was for execution of the (sic.) on the ground that he had already transferred the same for consideration in the year 1967. Even if the son had some vague knowledge, that could not be taken to mean that he had knowledge of the proceedings and that there was no sufficient cause for not tiling be objections under Section 11(???) of the UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, during the pendency of these proceedings. The ground on winch the objections have been dismissed by the appellate authority are obviously not very relevant and the order in this behalf is manifestly erroneous as ramc is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(2) of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Consequently the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

4. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated July 2, 1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority a copy of which has been annexed to the writ: petition as Annexure No. 3 and the order dated September 8, 1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 4 are hereby quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to restore back the objections filed by the petitioner to its original number and hear and decide the same on merits. There will be no orders as to the costs.