Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for the Respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2003 whereby the Prescribed Authority has allowed the parties to file objections since restoration applications filed by parties on 24.06.1981 and 09.06.1981 are to be decided by him afresh in purported compliance of this Court's direction in judgment dated 05.12.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 905 of 1984. It appears that land initially belong to one Jwala Singh. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 24.03.1976 declared 10 Bigha, 3 Biswa and 13 Biswansi of plot No. 188 surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The Petitioners are claiming that a sale deed was executed by Jwala Singh in their favour on 05.04.1972 and their names were also mutated on 02.06.1981 by inviting objections under Section 11(2) of the Act. The said objections were allowed by Prescribed Authority on 19.10.1981 and the order dated 24.03.1976 declaring land surplus was set aside. The Prescribed Authority proceeded further vide order dated 23.11.1981 upholding the execution of sale deed in favour of Petitioners and declared that there was no surplus land. An appeal was preferred against this order dated 23.11.1981 by State Government before the District Judge which was allowed vide judgment dated 13.10.1983 where against the Writ Petition No. 905 of 1984 was filed which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 05.12.2002 and relevant extract thereof reads as under: Against the order dated 23.11.1981 State filed an appeal, which was allowed by the District Judge Bareilly by the impugned order dated 13.10.1983 and the matter was remanded to Prescribed Authority. The Grievance of the Petitioner is that certain objections, where were raised before the District Judge, Bareilly have not been considered by him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.1983 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority for deciding it as afresh. All the objections raised by the Petitioners will be considered by the Prescribed Authority and the matter will be decided accordingly. There will however, be no order as to costs.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , this Court though set aside the appellate order only but remanded the matter to Prescribed Authority directing him to decide afresh. The parties are accepted this judgment. In these circumstances, the Prescribed Authority when was confronted with the situation as to what he has to decide afresh, he by means of the impugned order considered afresh the restoration application pending before him and permitted State to file its objection.;