- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. All the aforesaid Review Petitions have been filed against my judgment, dated 15th of May, 1995 dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12024 of 1992 along with 82 writ petitions decided by the same judgment.
(2.) THE present review applications have been filed by the applications in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 885, 886, 887, 888 and 891 of 1992 which have also been dismissed by the same judgment. In the present review applications, the applicant's contention is that the points raised by the petitioners in their writ petitions, have neither been considered nor decided in the judgment given by me while deciding 'bunch of writ petitions by a common judgment. Applicant Devkinandan Agrawal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 885 of 1992, claimed in his writ petition that he had instituted a revenue suit being Revenue Suit No. 22/234 in the year 1989- 90, under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act wherein he claimed to have impleaded Smt. Krishna Kapoor State of Uttar Pradesh and Gaon Sabha as respondents. Petitioner further claimed that the petitioner's suit was decreed ex parte by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kashspur, vide his judgment and decree, dated 7:5-1990 and the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid decree got his name recorded in the revenue records, but without any notice or information to the petitioner, the land for which the petitioner sought declaration claiming it to be his bhumidhari, has been notified by the respondents under Rule 13 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), m Form '6' declaring the aforesaid land as surplus land of M/s Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , Kashipur. The contention of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was that the said judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner has become final against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and is binding on the State Government and declaration of the aforesaid land under Rule 13 as surplus land of M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. is ab initio void and illegal. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the petitioners obtained an ad interim order from this Court directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute.
(3.) THE grievance of the other applicants in the present review applications, who were petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 886 of 1992, 387 of 1992, 888 of 1992 and 891 of 1992, is of similar nature. THE only difference in these cases is that while in the case of Devidnandan Agrawal, the defendant in his suit was Srnt. Krishna Kapoor while in the case of Abhinandan Agrawal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 886 of 1992, the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed arraying Sri Shashi Kapoor as a defendant in the suit. In the writ petition filed by Smi. Surajmukhi being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 887 of 1992,. she claims to have sought a declaration under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, arraying Sri Randhir Kapoor and others as defendant- Again in the case of Srinandan Agrawal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petitiion No. 888 of 1992, the defendant in his suit was Smt. Uma Sial and in the case olashok Kumar, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 891 of 1992, the defendant in his suit was again Smt. Uma Sial. The point raised in all the aforesaid review application is common and main contention of the applicants is that these petitioners have acquired independent rights over the land by virtue of the judgment and decree of a competent court which was binding on the State Government, as such without any notice to these petitioners, the land which was recorded in their names as their bhumidhari on the basis of a judgment and decree of a competent courts, could not have been notified under rule of the Rules framed under the Act as surplus land of M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. The further contention of the applicants is that this aspect of the matter has not been considered in my judgment against which the review applica tions have been filed.;