R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th May, 1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, Mathura and order dated 8th December, 1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority, contained in Annexures 3 and 2 respectively, in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, for short 'the Act'.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on enforcement of the Act a notice under section 10(2) was served upon Shyam Lal, father of the petitioners, calling upon him as to why an area measuring 17.01 acres out of his holding be not declared as surplus. On receipt of the notice Shyam Lal filed an objection pleading that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. He has mainly taken the plea that a family settlement was arrived at amongst the family members wherein the land was stated to have been partitioned. The nature of some of the plots was also challenged as the same were claimed to be unirrigated. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases. In the meanwhile, Shyam Lal died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives, who were substituted in his place in the proceeding. They have also filed their written statements/objections before the Prescribed Authority and also produced evidence in support of their case. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, dismissed the objection filed by Shyam Lal as well as by the petitioners and declared an area measuring 16.99 acres as surplus by its judgment and order dated 30.12.1974. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and reduced the area of surplus land from 16.99 acres to 12.05 acres by its judgment and order dated 26.8.1975. Challenging the validity of the said order the petitioners filed writ petition No. 12322 of 1975, which was also dismissed on 15th February, 1976 by this court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which was also rejected. Thus, the orders passed by the authorities below, this court and the Apex Court became final. However, the petitioners did not desist from prolonging the litigation. They filed an application purported to be under section 13-A of the Act, for all practical purposes also a review application, before the Prescribed Authority on 23.6.1981 on the ground that the notice under section 10(2) was not issued to them, which was also dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh by judgment and order dated 13.1.1983. The Prescribed Authority again dismissed the objection by its judgment and order dated 8.12.1983. The appeal filed against the said order also met the same fate and was dismissed by its judgment and order dated 10.5.1985, hence the present petition.;