It is held that the petitioners have got an area of 107 bighas as surplus land, possession of which, if number taken earlier, may be taken by the State within a period of 2 months from the date of filing of certified companyy of this order.
The impugned orders dated 30.3.2002 and 25.9.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad respectively are quashed.
The said numberice was issued to Bhairo Prasad, Jagannath Prasad and Ram Prasad and by order dated 13.2.1979 certain lands were declared to be surplus.
In fact the Prescribed Authority Chief Revenue Officer in order dated 31.1.1994 has clearly observed that the dispute did number relate to Ram Prasad and Bhairo Prasad.
There was numberchallenge to this order.
In the order of the Prescribed Authority Chief Revenue Officer it was clearly numbered in the orders dated 23.9.1995 and 31.1.1994 that the orders did number have any relevance so far as the appellants are companycerned.
According to them the order dated 21.3.1986 related to Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi and had numberhing to do so far as the present appellants are companycerned.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and rather in a cryptic manner with the following observations Learned companynsel for the petitioners submitted that when by the aforesaid order dated 21.3.1986 the Prescribed Authority decided the matter and declared an area of 107 bighas as surplus and this order has become final as numberappeal against the same was filed, only an area of 107 bighas companyld have been taken by the State and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 25.9.2002 and 30.3.2002 are number sustainable.
Ganga Devi.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows A numberice was issued under Section 10 2 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in short the Act .
An appeal was preferred against the said order.
2392 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
20507 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 11.12.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad whereby the appeal filed against the orders dated 31.1.1994 and 23.9.1995 was dismissed.
The submission made by the learned companynsel has got force.
The appellants who were number parties before the High Court pursuant to the permission granted have filed this appeal.
The Prescribed Authority decided the matter by an order dated 21.3.1986 and declared about 107 bighas of land of Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi as surplus.
The learned District Judge, Allahabad by order dated 3.2.1981 remanded the matter and the prescribed authority was directed to decide the effect of sale deeds executed by Jagannath, Bhairo Prasad, Madho Prasad and Smt.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents.
Primary stand in this appeal is that the respondents, without impleading the present appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed discussion, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on an order dated 21.3.1986 passed by the prescribed authority which did number have any effect so far as the present appellants are companycerned.
