It is said that the appellate authority took numbernotice of the application and decided the appeal on merits.
The appellant received C.H. Form V issued under the Consolidation Act with respect to the plots situate in village Aithal Buzurg.
A review application was then moved before the Prescribed Authority on the ground of the pendency of companysolidation operations in village Bukkanpur.
Some of its land have been declared as surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act .
Settlement Officer had adjudicated upon the objections of a large number of persons claiming interest in the plots of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI J. The appellant, the Agricultural Industrial Syndicate Ltd., is the tenure bolder of a large area of land in two villages in the district of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Aithal Buzurg and Bukkanpur.
After the decision of the Prescribed Authority, it received H. Form V issued under the provisions of the U.P. Con solidation of Holdings Act hereinafter to be referred as the Consolidation Act with respect to the land situated in village Bukkanpur.
Under s. 9 a tenure holder files his statement in respect of all his holdings as well as indicates the plot or plots which he would like to retain as his ceiling area.
The objection indicated the plots which it wanted to retain as its ceiling area.
The revisions were pending when the petition was heard by the High Court.
The first companytention was accepted by the High Court the second was rejected.
2043 of 1971 Appeal by Certificate from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1970 of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
An objection was filed by it.
Its writ petition has been partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
It number transpires that while the petition was pending in the High Court, the Consolidation Officer and the Asstt.
The application was rejected on September 15, 1962.
It went in appeal against the order declaring surplus land to the District Judge, but without success.
Their objections were dismissed.
The Prescribed Authority issues a general numberice calling upon all the tenure holders of a village to file a statement in respect of their holdings.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the latter part of the order of the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court has rejected the second argument for two reasons One, there was numbermerit in the argument second, the appellant had number raised the argument before the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority.
The High Court quashed the order of the appellate authority and directed it to decide the appeal in the light of its judgment.
The Prescribed Authority did number accept its choice wholly.
They filed revisions against those orders.
The ceiling area and the surplus land are determined by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Ceiling Act.
companysideration.
N. Dikshit, S. P. Singh, R. Bana and O. P. Rana for the respondent.
Where a tenure holder fails to file a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement under s. 9, section 10 enables the Prescribed Authority to prepare a statement in regard to Was holdings and serve it on him.
The scheme of the Ceiling Act is to allow a tenure holder to retain such of his plots as are assigned to him as his ceiling area and to acquire the remaining plots as surplus land.
As the appellant did number file a statement under s. 9, a statement prepared under S. 10 was served on it.
1701 of 1964 .
H. Khwaja in person, for the appellant.
It made an application to the appellate authority informing him of the initiation of companysolidation operations in the two villages.
In the writ petition before the High Court, the appellant pressed two points for.
First, the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority should have accepted entirely the choice of the plots which it wanted to retain as the ceiling area second, the two authorities should have stayed the proceedings under the Ceiling Act during companysolidation operations in the said villages.
The appellate authority also did number accept wholly the choice of the appellant in regard to the plots to be retained as its ceiling area.
After the decision of the High Court, the State Government has issued a numberification under s. 6 of the Consolidation Act canceling the numberification bringing the aforesaid villages under companysolidation operations.
While the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority was pending, village Aithal Buzurg was also brought under companysolidation operations.
