SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 15, who were added afterwards on their impleadment applications.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In this writ petition on 08.09.1997, an interim order was passed which is quoted below as it sums up the entire controversy in nutshell: "Issue notice. In the meanwhile considering the facts and circumstances brought on record it is directed that the dispossession of the petitioner from the plot in dispute no.312/2 of village Sher Nagar, Tahsil Chhata, Distt. Mathura shall remain stayed until further orders providing, however, that it will be open to the respondent authorities to take possession of the area 2.57 acres in question which has been declared surplus from the plot no.72 situated in village Jamalpur as given in the choice of the petitioner vide his application dated 5.6.97 a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition." The dispute relates to Plot No.312/2 of village Sher Nagar, Tahsil Chhata, District Mathura. Prayers No.1 & 3 relate to the said plot and Prayer No.2 is to the effect that respondents (original respondents of the writ petition) may be directed to decide the rights of the petitioners on the basis of evidence to be led by them on the application, Annexure-IV to the writ petition dated 22.02.1996. Proceedings against Har Chand father of both the petitioners were earlier finalized long before. Through Annexure-IV to the writ petition, proceedings were sought to be reopened in respect of Plot No.80, Khasra No.311, area 4.44 acres in the name of petitioner No.1, Bharti. In the earlier proceedings against petitioners' father which were taken till the High Court, the said land was taken into consideration. In Para-4 of the writ petition itself it has been mentioned that "Prescribed Authority excluded the land held and possessed by the petitioner Bharti". Accordingly, application dated 22.02.1996, Annexure-IV to the writ petition was utterly misconceived.
(3.) IN Para-5 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that father of the petitioners gave option on 03.05.1976 to the effect that surplus land could be taken from the land situate in villages Chameli Pur and Semari. Against order of the Prescribed Authority granting some relief to the petitioners' father, State filed appeal which was allowed on 11.10.1976 and an additional surplus land, area 2.57 acres was declared (para-6 of the writ petition). Possession of the additionally declared surplus land of 2.57 acres was taken and that was also allotted to different persons. In the application dated 05.06.1997 filed by both the petitioners, Annexure-III to the writ petition, it was mentioned that earlier also petitioners had filed an application that the 2.57 acres land should be taken from the land of the petitioners situate in village Jamalpur and Semari and Plot No.312/2, area 2.57 acres, which had been taken as surplus land should be returned to the petitioners. It is further mentioned in the said application dated 05.06.1997 that the said prayer had been rejected on the ground that possession of Plot No.312/2 had already been taken. It was further prayed that petitioners were illiterate, hence they did not know about the plot number and its situation and the counsel continued filing different applications. The prayer was that subsequently declared surplus area of 2.57 acres should be taken from Plot No.72, area 2.57 acres situate in village Jamalpur and it would be an act of kindness and consideration towards the petitioners as they were residing in Sher Nagar.;