Honourable A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by 18 tenure holders, who claim that the land had been allotted to them pursuant to the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The date of allotment is 9th June, 1984. THIS allotment came to be objected by one Faggan Singh and others on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled for any allotment. The proceedings were, therefore, initiated for cancellation of the said leases executed in favour of the petitioners under the Provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 27 of the 1960 Act. For ready reference Sub Section (4) of Section 27 is gainfully reproduced hereinbelow: "The Commissioner may of his own motion and shall on the application of any aggrieved person enquire into such settlement and if he is satisfied that the settlement is irregular he may after notice to the person in whose favour such settlement is made to show-cause. (i) Cancel the settlement and the lease, if any, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any instrument, the rights, title and interest of the person in whose favour such settlement was made or lease executed or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and such land shall revert to the State Government; and (ii) direct that every person holding or retaining possession thereof may be evicted, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." The leases in favour of the petitioners came to be cancelled vide order dated 27th December, 1988. The petitioners approached the Commissioner contending that such proceedings were ex parte and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. The same was rejected on 18th March, 1989, against which the petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 8851 of 1989. The contention was that the refusal by the Commissioner for not reviewing the order is erroneous as Section 37 of the Ceiling Act read with Section 151, C.P.C. empowered the Commissioner for such review. The writ petition was allowed on 3rd May, 1990, directing the Commissioner to pass a fresh order on reconsideration of the material on record. Needless to mention that this remand was based on the strength of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Banwari v. State of U.P. and others, 1975 RD 254. The Commissioner thereafter proceeded to recall the order dated 27.12.1988 vide order dated 14.3.1991 and restored the proceedings to its original number. The proceedings as noted above had been initiated on an application of Faggan Singh and others. It appears that the applicants on whose application, the proceedings had been initiated, did not pursue the matter and the same was dismissed in default on 30th January, 1992. A restoration application was filed, which was also dismissed on 24th May, 1993. Thus the aforesaid proceedings at the instance of Faggan Singh and others on an application for cancellation came to a close with the aforesaid dismissal of the proceedings in default.
(3.) THE respondent No. 7 Amir Singh S/o- Poosha Singh appears to have moved an application before the learned Commissioner, Moradabad Devision, Moradabad on 10th December, 2008 making a request that the tease in favour of the petitioners be cancelled as they are not the residents of the village and that the proceedings under which the lease was granted were all illegal. Accordingly, the prayer was to set aside the lease executed in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the resolution dated 9.6.1984 as approved on 27.7.1984. Notices were issued to the petitioners who filed their response thereto and brought it to the notice of the learned Commissioner that the earlier proceedings had already been finalized way back on 24.5.1993 and this application which has been moved afresh, cannot be entertained. The learned Commissioner however, proceeded with the matter and held that the proceedings have been initiated suo motu, therefore, the parties may lead evidence. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings in Writ Petition No. 53247 of 2009 which was disposed of on 13.10.2009 by the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. This petition has been filed with the prayer that suo motu proceedings initiated by the Additional Commissioner under Section 27 (4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short "the Act") may not be allowed to proceed on account of the fact that they have been initiated after expiry of limitation as contemplated under Section 27 (6) of the Act. The petitioners have also filed objection to this effect before the Commissioner and the Commissioner is seized of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation the petitioners approached this Court and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner and thereafter application under Section 27 (4) of the Act was dismissed. Recall application moved by the contesting respondents was also dismissed and the entire proceedings attained finality on 24.5.1993. Thereafter, in the year 2008 an application under the same Section has been moved for cancellation of the patta. He further submits that the repeated innings cannot be allowed by the Court to misuse the process of the Court time and again. Once the proceedings have attained finality, the parties would be bound by the same. Although in the present case, the application has been moved by the person, who was not party in the earlier proceedings but the question of limitation comes in the way is the contention of the petitioners' counsel. The objection is pending before the Commissioner. The question as to whether the proceedings can go on or not, is a question to be decided by the Commissioner after adjudicating the controversy in the matter. In this view of the matter, Commissioner concerned is directed to dispose of the objection of the petitioners in regard to limitation first and thereafter if the proceedings survive, then only he shall proceed in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.";