R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) 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 auashing the orders dated 31.3.1984 and 30.9.1983 passed by the authorities below. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite-parties not to interfere with petitioners' possession over the land in dispute, has also been made.
(2.) For the purposes of deciding the present petition, it is not necessary to give the facts of the case in detail. It would suffice to say that after the case was decided by the authorities below, an application under section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', was filed by Shri Jagannath Prasad. The said application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 1.10.1977. Thereafter, two appeals were filed before the appellate authority, which were dismissed on 7.8.1979. The parties thereafter filed two writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition No. 6177 of 1979 and Writ Petition No. 8516 of 1979. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed Writ Petition No. 8516 of 1979 filed by Binod Behari while the Writ Petition No. 6177 of 1979 was allowed on 28.7.1981 and the case was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court below is quoted below: "In the result, therefore, writ petition No. 6177/79 is allowed and the impugned orders of the P.A. and the appellate authority are set aside. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority with direction to decide it afresh according to law. Writ Petition No. 8516/1979 is dismissed. In the circumstances, no order is made as to costs in both these two petitions."
(3.) After the aforesaid order was passed, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to decide the case afresh under the directions of this Court. The petitioners raised objection before the Prescribed Authority that their rights have become final and it was not open to She Prescribed Authority to reopen the whole case. The Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 30.9.1983 directed to send back the record of the case to the Tehsildar to prepare the notices under section 10 (2) of the Act and place the same before him within the time prescribed by him. He also directed the parties to appear before him after receipt of notices. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal which was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 25 of 1983 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the parties passed the order, which is quoted below: "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order under appeal does not appear to have either under section 11 or the section 12 of the Act and therefore no appeal under section 13 of the Act is maintainable. That being so the appeal is misconceived and is therefore liable to be dismissed.";