- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioners claim themselves to be the successors of those who had been allotted land which had been declared surplus in the hands of one Gulab Singh the tenure holder. Gulab Singh contested the matter on the ground of choice and the intervening events have culminated in the final judgment of the High Court dated 21.8.2009 that was filed by Gulab Singh being writ petition no. 14710 of 2003.
(3.) The predecessors in interest of the petitioners were parties to the said writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority were quashed with a finding to the following effect: Considering all these aspects of the matter in view, I am of the opinion that an allottee cannot acquire better right than the right as exists with the State, therefore, after the plots were exempted from the Ceiling could be retained by the allottee as the entry of the revenue record is automatic follow-up to which no cancellation of any allotment is required and allottee has no locus stand to intervene in the matter and no separate application is required to be moved for cancellation of the lease, which was executed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. In spite of the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, the possession of the plot nos. 1877, 1063 and 290 (min) have not been given back to the petitioner but his application is rejected on misconceived grounds. Therefore, the orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.;