R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing he order dated 21.9.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in exercise of power under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings, Act, for short 'the Act'.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, as stated in the writ petition and narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the respondent No. 3, Charan Singh calling upon him as to why the land specified in the notice be not declared as surplus. Respondent No. 3, on receipt of the said notice, filed objection claiming that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after perusing the material on the record, by its order dated 30.1.1986 declared an area measuring 7.43 acres as surplus. Challenging the validity of the said order, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal by order dated 25.8.1986 and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh. The Prescribed Authority on remand, again upheld its earlier order and declared the saxne area as surplus by its order dated 20.5.1988. Respondent No. 3 again filed an appeal which met the same fate and was dismissed by order dated 18.7.1988. Challenging the validity of the said order, respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 13276 of 1988 in this Court, which was partly allowed on 12.1.1989. It was dismissed so far as declaration of the aforesaid land as surplus is concerned, but was allowed to the extent that the tenure-holder, the respondent No. 3 was permitted to give his choice as provided under Section 12-A of the Act. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, filed an application on 13.4.1990 in compliance of the order passed by the High Court giving his choice for the land to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority on 13.9.1990, allowed the said application and accepted the choice given by respondent No. 3. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner have filed an application for recalling the order dated 13.9.1990 contending that the land, which was given in choice was their property, which they have purchased through sale deed dated 16.8.1983 for valuable consideration, therefore, their land could not be declared as surplus at the instance of respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the said application by order dated 28.2.1995 but without setting aside the order dated 13.9.1990, he directed the respondent No. 3 to change his choice. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 21.9.1995 and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh holding that the Prescribed Authority had no right to pass the order dated 28.2.1995 without setting aside the order dated 13.9.1990. Hence the present petition.;