LAW FOR ALL

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act =raised that the proceedings had abated = -A notice under Section 10(2) of the principal Act, was served upon the tenure-holder, one Kamla Devi, to file objections against a proposal to declare 51.29 acres as surplus land. Pursuant to the said notice, objections were filed by the late Kamla Devi as also by appellants 1 to 3, her legal heirs. According to the appellants, on a correct construction of the Act, there was no surplus land. Meanwhile, the Prescribed Authority under the Act passed an order dated 13.1.1975 by which order the entire land that was the subject matter of the notice, was declared surplus = prescribed authority to re-determine surplus land under Section 31(3) - mutatis mutandis to every order re-determining surplus land under sub-section 3 of this Section or Section 9 of the 1974 Amendment Act = This being the case, it was necessary for the prescribed authority to re-determine surplus land under Section 31(3) in accordance with the principal Act as amended by the 1976 Act, for which purpose, the provisions of section 13 of the principal Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to every order re-determining surplus land under sub-section 3 of this Section or Section 9 of the 1974 Amendment Act – (vide Section 31(4) of the 1976 Amendment Act). This never having been done on facts in the present case, ;Once abated and it could not therefore have been heard - without jurisdiction =it is clear that the appeal filed in 1975 has abated and could not therefore have been heard by the Additional Commissioner, Agra on merits. This being so, the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner dated 13.12.1975 is without jurisdiction. ; Notice under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 = Both the appellate authority and the High Court were of the view that no fresh notice had been issued under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972. It has been pointed out to us, on facts, that in fact such a notice had been issued on 24.11.1975. Despite this, the appellate authority and the High Court, in their anxiety to decide against abatement, have wrongly held no such notice was proved to have been issued. Be that as it may, it is clear that abatement under Section 31 does not depend upon the issuance or non- issuance of any notice under Section 9(2) as amended. This being the case, the finding of fact of non-issuance of notice itself being a non-issue, it is unnecessary for us to pursue the same. It is only necessary to reiterate that no fresh exercise under the 1976 Amendment Act was undertaken by the prescribed authority as is required by section 31(3) of the 1976 Amendment Act. This being the case, the impugned judgment of the High Court has necessarily to be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs.