- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Pundir who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 9.
(2.) The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the orders dated 19.09.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, whereby the order of respondent no. 3 was affirmed and the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
(3.) It appears that proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P.L.R. Act were initiated by the respondents claiming that the land in question was recorded in their name. Subsequently, this land was submerged by waters of the Yamuna river. When it re-emerged in 1968, the same was recorded in the name of State. The proceedings were therefore, initiated relying upon notifications issued by the State Government to the effect that on re-emerging, the land would necessarily vest in the person who was entered thereon prior to its getting submerged. Merely because it had re-emerged water, the rights of the parties recorded prior to such submersion would not stand extinguished.;