HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 3002245 of 1984 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner-State. 2. Sri Avadhesh Kumar, Advocate was representing respondent No.1, who died during the pendency of the writ petition and notice was issued to legal heirs, which has been served, but nobody has put in appearance on their behalf, therefore, Sri Avadhesh Kumar, Advocate was directed to assist the Court. 3. The present writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.1983, passed by the Special Judge, Kheri in Rent Revenue Appeal No.125 of 1981, whereby the Special Judge set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and issued direction to the effect that the land in new plots Nos.41 and 54 recorded in the name of appellant Kharag Singh in C.H. form No.5 is not to be declared as surplus of tenure holder Harbans Singh. 4. Factual matrix of the case is that Harbans Singh and Sobaran Singh had their 1/3rd share each in the plots situated in village Paduwa. However, notices were served under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Act No.1 of 61 in respect of the ceiling area of Harbans Singh and an area of 10.583 acres of village Paduwa was declared surplus land on 30.4.1977, which was also notified in the official gazette and possession was delivered to the State of U.P. Thereafter, Kharag Singh (respondent) preferred objections Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Avadhesh Kumar State of U.P. .....Petitioner(s) Kharagh Singh And Others .....Respondent(s) in respect of the land declared surplus of Harbans Singh alleging that the tenure holder's rights had already been declared in the suit under Section 229-B in respect of plots Nos.75-area 0.04, 74-area 0.03, 77-area 0.45, 78-area 1.07, 79- area 0.47, 80-area 0.30, 81 area 0.03, total area 2.59 acres, which had been included int he declared surplus land of the tenure holder Harbans Singh and the same should be exempted from the surplus area of Harbans Singh. 5. 5. A written reply to Kharag Singh's objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act was also filed by on behalf of the Naib Tehsildar, Ceiling, whereby it has been asserted that the decree in suit under Section 229-B having been made on 14.7.1975, the said decision was not of any legal value so far as the ceiling proceedings are concerned. Suit under Section 229-B was filed by Kharag Singh on 29.6.1971 and was decreed ex-parte by the judgment and decree dated 14.7.1975. The prescribed authority, Ceiling by an order dated 28.9.1981 rejected the objection of Kharag Singh. 6. Submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner-State is that while remanding the matter, the appellate court has taken notice of the cut off date i.e. 8.6.1973, but no reasons whatsoever have been recorded that the judgment passed in the proceeding of 229-B, shall be made applicable or not. Next submission is that the impugned appellate order is wholly illegal and misconceived. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Ram Charan Vs. State of U.P. and others [AIR 1979 ALLAHABAD 114]. 7. Sri Avadhesh Kumar, Advocate on the assistance submitted that Kharag Singh became Sirdar in pursuance to the order passed in the proceeding of 229-B vide order dated 14.7.1975, which is after the cut off date i.e. 8.6.1973. The question arises that whether the judgment passed on 14.7.1975 is effective after the cut off date i.e. 8.6.1973 or not. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Ziley Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and others [1978 ALL. L.J. 772]. 8. I have heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. WRIC No. 3002245 of 1984 2 9. On perusal of the order of the appellate court, whereby the case was remanded back to the prescribed authority, it is evident that he has noticed the cut off date i.e. 8.6.1973, but no finding has returned in regard to the applicability of the judgment passed in proceeding under Section 229-B on 14.7.1975, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration before the appellate court. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.10.1983, passed by the appellate court is hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow to pass a fresh order taking into consideration the cut off date i.e. 8.6.1973 within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The judgment relied upon by both the parties shall also be taken into consideration, while passing the order by the appellate court. August 25, 2025 Gautam WRIC No. 3002245 of 1984 3 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench