Their plea was initially accepted but the Compensation Officer vide his order dated 3.1.1957 allowed the appeal filed by DCM and against that appellate Order, the land owners went in appeal before the Board of Revenue, but their claim was rejected.
On account of the fact that ceiling surplus had been determined in the hands of the respondent companypany and our present order holding that the appellants have interest in regard to about 64 bighas of land out of the land in dispute, a fresh determination of the surplus has to be done.
3, 4 5 herein who are the successors in interest of the original land owners are entitled to have rights over 72.50 bighas of disputed land.
Predecessors in interest of Yashvir Singh Respondent No.
The companypetent authority shall forward a companyy of his determination within two weeks after three months to the Registry of this companyrt.
An appeal was filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority held that only an extent of 2 2 10.
3, 4 5.
We, therefore, direct that the companypetent authority shall proceed to determine the ceiling surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 within three months from today and once that is done, the appellants shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the area companying within the ceiling limit and the balance shall vest in the Uttar Pradesh Government.
They too filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
3, 4 5 and ultimately this Court held on 23.11.1989 that they were entitled to have further right over 72 bighas more of the disputed land.
They were number entitled to get allotment of these lands and the reasons are elaborately given in the Judgment of the Division Bench.Two other persons, namely, Omvati and Shastri Sankari Avas Samiti Ltd. had also filed two separate writ petitions.
The writ petitions were again filed against the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court and the matter was decided by the High Court on 28.11.1969.
Excluding 8/7/0 bighas of land in possession of allottees, this Court directed that 64 bighas of land should be put in possession of Respondent number.
Their claim was rejected by the Prescribed Authority.
The appeals filed by the allottees of land are also without any merits.
Against that decision, the matter was again taken up in appeal before this Court by Special leave and all the parties to that proceedings ultimately accepted the position that the Respondent number.
424 426/1997, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
After the death of the father of the respondents, they put up some buildings on that site for residential purposes.
Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the prescribed authority passed an order on 11.10.1990 and held that 14 bighas out of 64 bighas of land are to be treated as surplus land in the hands of Respondent Nos.
Only by virtue of the Judgment dated 23.11.1989, Respondent number.
The appellants entry in the suit was an unlawful act.
Against that Judgment, special appeals were filed and it was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the predecessors in interest of respondent number 3 , 4 5 had got Bhumidari right over 142 Bighas out of total land which was given on lease to DCM.
These orders were challenged before the High Court in Writ petitions and the matter was remitted to the lower Appellate Court.
3, 4 5.
When U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as Z.A.Act came into force, a companypensation statement was prepared under Chapter IXA of Z.A. Act and DCM was held to be Adhiwasi of this land.
1/3 bighas of land companyld be treated as surplus land in the hands of Jagdishpal Singh R5 .
The original land owners, namely, predecessors in interest of R3, R4 and R5 filed objection to this and claimed Bhumidari right over the entire land.
This decision of the High Court was challenged by Respondent Nos.
Their allotments were cancelled for various reasons.
After companying back, they found that the appellants had occupied that suit property after putting up a company shed on the site in which their residential buildings stood.
The land owners thereafter filed Special Leave Petition before this Court and this Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh decision.
On 23.9.1987, the matter was decided afresh holding that the predecessors in interest of Respondent Nos.
After the companymencement of the Ceiling Act, the land companyered by the lease deed was sought to be declared as surplus land in the hands of DCM.
3, 4 5 and Prescribed Authority was directed to determine the surplus land of these respondents.
3, 4 5 had Bhumidari right over 142 17 2 Bighas of land and for the rest of the land the DCM was declared to have Adhiwasi and Sirdar rights.
On January 26, 1951, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force wherein it was prescribed that , on the companymencement of the Act, all Estates shall vest in the State.
4 and Jagdishpal Singh Respondent No.
Certain lands were given to Meerut Development Authority.
The respondents companytended that they were lawfully holding the buildings and the site till 1947 and they never gave up the possession of the buildings voluntarily and that in law they companytinued to be in possession of the building.
Their claim regarding the rest of the land was rejected.
The surplus lands taken over by the Government were allotted to some persons.
427 429/1997 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. These appeals arise out of a companymon Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad.
During the companymunal disturbances in 1947, the respondents left the village and came back in 1949 when the companyditions improved.
The operative portion of the Judgment of this Court is as follows The assertion of the State of Uttar Pradesh that most of the lands in dispute have been taken over by the State as ceiling surplus land is number disputed.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
5 in Civil Appeal Nos.424 429 of 1997 had executed a lease in 1936 in favour of Delhi Cloth General Mills hereinafter referred to as D.C.M. The lease was for a period of 25 years in respect of 375 bighas of land.
After prolonged litigation, the High Court decided on 23.9.1987 that the predecessors in interest of R3, R4 and R5 had got Bhumidari right over 142/17/2 bighas of land and for the rest of the land, DCM was declared to have Adhiwasi and Sirdar rights.
The appellant should be entitled to be put into possession of the lands out of 64 bighas which would be within the ceiling limit.
An extent of 8 7 0 bighas of land was excluded and 64 bighas of land was directed to be put in possession of Respondent Nos.
The matter relates to the fixation of ceiling under the provisions of the Ceiling Act.
Against this Order, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed three Writ petitions.
The appellants refused to deliver possession of the suit property and the respondents instituted a suit for possession of the same on January 9, 1951.
3 , Satvir Singh Respondent No.
They went in appeal and the Appellate Authority held that DCM had only Asami right.
The land owners claimed Bhumidari right over the said land.
This Court also directed for re determination of the surplus land of these respondents.
By the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench disposed of 10 Writ Petitions filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act .
