S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 2.9.2004 as given in Writ Petition No. 35685 of 2004 Acchey Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others, copy of which was placed by learned Counsel during course of argument.
(2.) On examination of the facts of present case in presence of learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, there appears to be no dispute about the fact that the exercise by the Collector as was considered in the Writ Petition No. 35685 of 1991, Achhey Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others, referred above was the same as is in the present case. This Court by the judgment referred above, has remitted the matter to the Collector of the district for taking fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and till the disposal of matter, petitioner's interest has been protected
(3.) In view of aforesaid without going into the merits in detail, this Court also proposes to dispose of the writ petition in the same terms and conditions as was given in Writ Petition No. 35685 of 2004, Acchey Lal and others v. Stale of U.P. and others.;