High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Umakant Dewedi v. The State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Finance & Rev. & Others - WRIT - C No. 2636 of 2007  RD-AH 1127 (17 January 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2636 of 2007
Umakant Dewedi vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
This petition arises out of proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short ''the Act'). Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner proposing to declare certain area as surplus which was contested by filing objection. Prescribed Authority vide order dated 15.1.2000 declared an area of 14.616 Hectare in terms of irrigated land as surplus in the hand of the petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal. Appellate court vide order dated 18.12.2001 partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the prescribed authority to decide the same afresh after issuing notices to all the recorded tenure-holders and spot inspection. The matter came to be decided by the prescribed authority vide order dated 30.10.2002. Petitioner again challenged the same by filing an appeal which was allowed by the appellate court vide order dated 19.5.2003 and the matter was again remanded back to the prescribed authority . The prescribed authority after making spot inspection again decided the proceeding and declared an area of 13.576 hectare in terms of irrigated land as surplus. An application under Order IX Rule 13 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that spot inspection was carried out ex-parte without any notice and the order was also passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. Prescribed authority vide order dated 25.5.2006 dismissed the application with the finding that the petitioner had due notice about the spot inspection as well as the date of hearing but he deliberately did not participate in the proceeding. Order of the prescribed authority was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was also dismissed and the finding recorded by the prescribed authority that petitioner had due notice and knowledge of the proceeding and he deliberately did not participate in the proceeding was confirmed. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this court by filing instant writ petition challenging the order dated 25.5.2006 passed by the prescribed authority, 4.10.2006 passed by the appellate authority as well as initial order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the prescribed authority.
It was open to the petitioner to have challenged the order dated 28.2.2006 along with the order dated 25.5.2006. However, challenge in the appeal was made only to the order dated 25.5.2006 and the initial order passed by the prescribed authority dated 28.2.2006 was not challenged. In so far as order dated 25.5.2006 and 4.10.2006 are concerned, in view of concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, there is no scope of interference with the same.
In so far as order dated 28.2.2006 is concerned, since the petitioner did not challenge the same while filing an appeal against the order dated 25.5.2006 it is left open to him to challenge the same by filing a proper appeal, if so advised.
Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.