1. There is a Co-operative Society in Tehsil Nagina of district Bijnor in the State of U.P. It is known as Tajpur Cooperative Farming Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'). S/Shri Surendrajeet Singh, Virendrajeet Singh, Sanhendrajeet Singh, Mahendrajeet Singh, Shailendrajeet Singh, Jamdganjeet Singh, Raj Kumar Sushma, Kanak Biharni, Ramchandra Singh, Thakur Surendrabahadur, John Wash wail Field, Lalta Pd., Chhotey Singh, Gannu Singh, Dhyan Singh and Ghasita Singh are alleged to be members of the Society, who allegedly pooled their land in favour of the Society. It is alleged that after the land was pooled the name of the Society was recorded in respect of the said land. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 3069-3071/ 1997 are the transferees of the land on the basis of sale deed executed after 24-1-1971 by the Society. Under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') a notice was served on the Society indicating therein that the Society had surplus land. The Society filed an objection to the effect that the ceiling proceeding cannot be taken against it and notices are required to be given to its members in respect of their holding including the land pooled in proportion to their respective shares in the Society under Section 5(4) of the Act. Consequently, the notice issued against the Society was withdrawn on 31-1-1975. In that view of the matter, on 27-4-1976, separate notices were sent to six members of the Society under Section 10(2) of the Act and the land contributed by them in favour of the Society were included in their holding for determining their ceiling area under the Act. It is relevant to mention that other members of the Society who were alleged to have contributed their land in favour of the Society were not served with the notices under Section 10(2) of the Act. On 17-6-1982, the prescribed authority after determining ceiling area of the six members (tenure-holders) who pooled their respective land in favour of the Society held that those members had surplus land. Subsequently, on 22-11-1984 and 4-12-1984, the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 3069-71/1997, who are the transferees, and the Society respectively filed separate applications under Section 11(2) of the Act for setting aside the order dated 17-6-1982 along with applications for condonation of delay in filing the applications and also the objections. The said applications were rejected by the prescribed authority on 10-6-1987 on the ground that the applications were barred by time. Separate appeals were filed by the appellants before the Commissioner of the Division. The Additional Commissioner, vide his order dated 24-3-1988, dismissed all the appeals and upheld the order of the prescribed authority. The appellants thereafter preferred separate writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad, but the same were also dismissed by judgment and order dated 11-4-1996 and 22-4-1996, respectively. However, the High Court, while dismissing the writ petitions, touched upon the merits of the matter also. It is against the said judgment and order, the present appeals have been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged, that since no notices under Section 10(2) of the Act were given to the appellants and inasmuch as they were not parties to the proceeding under Section 11 of the Act before the prescribed authority, the delay in filing the objections deserved to have been condoned. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel.
3. In Civil Appeals Nos. 3069-71/1997, admittedly, the appellants are transferees and no notices were given to them as, presumably, their names were not recorded in the revenue record. Further, the appellants stated that they were not aware of the proceeding taken against the six members (tenure-holders) of the Society and, therefore, they could not file applications within time. Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3072-77/ 1997, the Society was also not served with the notices under Section 10(2) of the Act and inasmuch as was not aware of the proceeding taken against its six members of the Society. In view of the said fact and inasmuch as the appellants have interest in the land declared surplus, we are satisfied that the appellants being not aware of the proceeding taken against the six members of the Society in pursuance of notices issued to them under Section 10(2) of the Act, the delay in filing applications for setting aside the earlier order of the prescribed authority was liable to be condoned. We, therefore, set aside order and judgment under challenge and send the matter back to the prescribed authority for deciding the objections of the appellants in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the objections of the Society as well as of the transferees on merits. We also make it clear that any observations made by the High Court or prescribed authority in its order dated 31-1-1975 discharging the notice will not come in any way of the prescribed authority in deciding the objections of the appellants on merits. The prescribed authority shall decide whether the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants were in good faith on the basis of the materials already on record.
4. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.