AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners claim themselves to be lease holders of surplus land alleged to have been so declared under the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.2.1975 and 18.7.1990. These orders have been set aside In appeal Qn 11.11.2003 at the instance of .tenure holders respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a recall application for recalling the order dated 11.11.2003. This was done on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the said appeal. After four years they filed a writ petition assailing the order dated 11.11.2003 before this Court being Writ Petition No. 51827 of 2007 in which an order was passed that it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application for setting aside the order dated 11.4.2003. The writ petition was got dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 25.10.2007 Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now come up before this Court for a mandamus that the authority be directed to decide the recall application which has been filed pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 25.10.2007.
(3.) IN the opinion of the Court the petitioners can be valid lease holders provided the land is surplus. In view of the facts that have been brought on record- the order of the Prescribed Authority itself has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. The petitioners did not press their writ petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2003 passed in appeal.;