U.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) The petitioners have approached to this Court with the following reliefs: (A) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to restitute within given time the land declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 7-10-1976 contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition. (B) Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to pay damages to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per bigha per annum. (C) Issue writ or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 1-3-1984 and 6-3-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority contained in Annexure Nos.5 and 8 to this writ petition.
(2.) A notice under section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon the petitioner No.l on 29- 5-1974. In the said notice 12 Bighas, 15 Biswas and 6 Biswansi land of the petitioner No. 1 was proposed as surplus. The petitioner No. 1 filed his objection to the Prescribed Authority by the judgment and order dated 21- 12-1974 rejected the objection of the petitioner No. 1 and declared 12 Bighas 15 Biswas and 6 Biswanshi land as surplus. The Prescribed Authority, thereafter taken the possession of the aforesaid surplus land from the petitioner No. 1. The Prescribed Authority thereafter issued a second notice under section 10 (2) of the Act which was served upon the petitioner No. 1 on 13-4-1974 and the land of petitioners No. 2 and 3 total area 21 Bighas 1 Biswa and 9 Biswanshi was also clubbed in the land of the petitioner No.1 and 29 Bighas. 1 Biswa and 18 Bishwanshi land was proposed as surplus land. The petitioner No. I filed an objection before the Prescribed Authority stating interalia that the land of petitioners 2 and 3 has wrongly been clubbed in his holding. It was also stated that petitioners 2 and 3 are married daughters and they do not fall within the definition of family of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners 2 and 3 also filed their objections stating that they are in possession in their own rights over 21 Bighas, 1 Biswa and 9 Biswansi of land. The parties filed the oral and documentary evidence before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 7-10-1976 rejected the objections and confirmed the area given in the notice as surplus. The said order of the Prescribed Authority dated 7-10-1976 was challenged by the petitioners 2 and 3 by way of appeal under section 13 of the Act before the District Judge, Lucknow. The District Judge, Lucknow, by the judgment and order dated 2-5-1978 allowed the appeal and discharged the notice. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of its judgment and order dated 7-10- 1976 during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioners 2 and 3 taken the possession of 29 Bighas 1 Biswas and 18 Biswanshi land and also executed the leases of the surplus land. The petitioner No. l thereafter moved an application on 28- 1-1983 before the Prescribed Authority for the restoration of the land measuring 29 Bigha 1 Biswa and 18 Biswanshi. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 1-3- 1984 rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed review petition before the Prescribed Authority which too was dismissed by the order dated 6-3-1987. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the appeal the possession was taken over by the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of its order dated 7-10-1976 in an illegal manner. He further submits that the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, dated 2-5-1978 was not challenged by the State Government in writ jurisdiction or before any other authority, even then the possession of surplus land has not been restored to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioners made representation before the Prescribed Authority but the same was rejected by the order dated 1-3-1984. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 6-3- 1987 also rejected the review petition.;