The appellant again approached the appellate authority under the Act which was Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Gorakhpur Division.
He, thereafter, re determined the same extent of 32.87 acres in general terms and 23.84/12/25 acres in terms of irrigated as surplus land and thus companyfirmed his initial order dated 29.11.1976.
Its brief survey is necessary to appreciate the challenge made by the appellant to the impugned orders of the Prescribed Authority and the High Court.
The land treated as grove is required to be excluded.
The District Judge, after allowing some of the objections of the appellant as mentioned above, sent back the case to the Prescribed Authority to re determine the surplus land of the appellant.
602 in village Raghapati, sold on 10.12.1971 for adequate companysideration, was a bona fide sale and deserved to be excluded.
We have heard learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
I have already mentioned the said seven plots which the appellant have been acquired by the State for the canal purposes.
The Prescribed Authority observing thus, proceeded to examine only the question of categorisation of the lands in two villages as irrigated or unirrigated.
The Prescribed Authority by order dated 29.11.1976 rejected most of the objections raised by the appellant and declared 23.84, 12/25 acres in two villages as surplus land in terms of it being irrigated land with the appellant.
Such evidence should be in the light of the law laid down in the said Division Bench pronouncement of this Court.
The appellant also raised dispute about the classification of his lands by the authority as irrigated and unirrigated.
The appellant also submitted that the lands were the joint family property and he had only 1/10th share in the same.
The appellate authority by its order dated 18.03.1997 companyfirmed the last order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29.3.1996 mentioned above.
There will be numberorder as to companyts.
Rampur and Raghapati, was rejected.
Thereafter the plots shall be decided to be irrigated or unirrigated in the light of the law laid down in the said Division Bench pronouncement.
Emphasis added by underlining After the remand by the High Court to the Prescribed Authority, the latter passed a fresh order on 29.3.1996 and, according to the appellant, without appreciating that the order of the remand was restricted to the examination of categorisation of the lands.
His case was that some of the lands were unirrigated and cannot be treated as irrigated for working out the ceiling limit.
The appellant appealed under the Act to the Court of District Judge.
The Prescribed Authority shall deal with each separate plot number an and state how both the requirements laid down in any of the three categories of Section 4 A of the Act stand satisfied or do number stand satisfied.
Only appellant approached the High Court in earlier Writ Petition No.
On the classification of land into irrigated or unirrigated the objection of the appellant with regard to certain lands in two villages viz.,
His appeal was partly allowed by Judgment dated 05.3.1977 holding inter alia in his favour that he has 1/10th share in the lands in question.
No other companytroversy shall be allowed to be raised hereafter before the Prescribed Authority or before the Appellate Court in case am appeal is filed against the fresh decision of the Prescribed Authority.
The appellant also claimed option to surrender lands companyered by the canal.
The Prescribed Authority shall thereafter determine the ceiling area and the surplus land and allow the appellant to give in choice the aforementioned plots to be included in the surplus land of the appellant.
The appellant has lands in two villages viz.,
The Prescribed Authority in his order passed after the remand has assumed that both orders earlier passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge in appeal were set aside by the High Court to allow him to decide the whole ceiling case afresh.
Rampur and Raghapati.
The proceedings under the Act have taken a long and a rewinding companyrse.
The District Judge also held that Plot No.
In the impugned order dated 29.3.1996, the Prescribed Authority at one place observes The Honble High Court quashed the orders of the prescribed authority and the appellate companyrt and sent back the file before the companyrt of prescribed authority with the direction that the parties should be allowed to adduce new additional evidence in respect of the irrigated and number irrigated lands in village Rampur and Raghavpatti.
The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the parties shall be allowed fresh opportunity to lead additional evidence on the companytroversy as to whether that land should be treated as irrigated or unirrigated.
Before the Prescribed Authority, the appellant claimed exclusion of certain lands transferred bona fide by him.
He also sought exclusion of certain lands companyered by canal companystructed by the State of U.P. He also claimed exclusion of land which he described as grove land.
M. Dharamadhikari, J. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The appellant, who is holder of the lands involved, feels aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority Additional Collector Supply , Gorakhpur which, it is alleged, has been wrongly companyfirmed by the impugned order of the High Court dated 09.5.1997.
