- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. All these writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 12900 of 1981, have been filed challenging the order dated 4. 3. 1991 passed by the appellate authority modifying the order of the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)! Writ Petition No, 12900 of 1981 has been filed against the order dated 15. 10. 1981 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners therein against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 28. 1. 1981, rejecting their applications for allotment of the surplus land under Section 27 (3) of the Act. As these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Necessary facts stated herein below have been taken from writ petitions No. 9760 of 1991 and 35613 of 1991.
(2.) PREDECESSORS of Sri Satveer Singh, Sri Yashveer Singh and Sri Jagdish Pal Singh, who are respondents in these writ petitions and who will herein after be referred to as land-holders, had executed lease in 1936 of about 375 Bighas of their land in favour of Delhi Cloth and General Mills (hereinafter referred to as D. C. M.) for twenty-five years. After the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Z. A. Act) compensation statement was prepared under Chapter IX-A of the said Act showing D. C. M. as Adhiwasi of the land. Land-holders predecessors filed objection claiming rights of Bhumidhari over that land. Their objection was initially upheld by the Compensation Officer vide order dated 3. 1. 1957, but appeals filed by the D. C. M. against the above order, were allowed. Against the said appellate order second appeals, filed before the Board of Revenue, by predecessors of the land-holders, were dismissed. After enforcement of the Act some of the land covered by the lease-deed was sought to be declared as surplus land in the hands of D. C. M. Objections were filed under the Act by the predecessors of the land-holders claiming Bhumidhari rights over the said land. Their objections were, however, rejected by the Prescribed Authority holding them not to be Bhumidhars of that land. But their appeals filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority were allowed holding TXC. M. as only Asami. The above orders were challenged by means of writ petitions before this Court, which were allowed on 22. 12. 1966 and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court. Against the decision of lower appellate Court after remand, writ petitions were filed again before this Court which were decided vide judgment dated 28. 11. 1969, against which special appeals were filed, which were allowed holding that the predecessors of the land-holders are Bhumidhars of about 142 Bighas out of the total land, which was given on lease to D. C. M. Their claim regarding rest of the land was rejected. The predecessors thereafter filed Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court against the judgment given in special appeals. Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to this court for fresh decision. This Court on 23. 9. 1987 decided the appeals afresh maintaining the same position, namely, holding the predecessors of the land-holders as Bhumidhars of 142-17-2 v Bighas land and for the rest of the land D. C. M. was declared as its Adhiwasis and Sirdars. Against this decision Special Leave Petition was filed only by the three land- holders who belong to one of the three branches of the predecessors. Before the Supreme Court learned counsel for all the parties have accepted the position that appellants (land-holders) are entitled to about 72 Bighas of the disputed land. Supreme Court after excluding 8-7-0 Bigha land, held that the appellants are entitled to 64 Bighas out of the land in dispute and directed for fresh determination of the surplus land. It was further held that the land-holder would be entitled to be put into possession of the land out of 64 Bighas, which would be within the ceiling limits. Supreme Court accordingly directed the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus land of the land-holders, if any, afresh under the Act in accordance with law within three months and the competent authority under the Act was further directed to forward a copy of its order to the Supreme Court. Relevant extracts from the judgment of the Supreme Court is as under : "this matter was taken up for hearing on several dates before us and ultimately counsel appearing for both sides have accepted the position that the claim of the appellants was confined to 72 bighas, 75 Biswas and 10 1/2 Biswansis only. It has been conceded in an affidavit filed by Jasbir Singh in this Court that 8 bighas and 7 biswas of land have been allotted to allottees who are in possession on the basis that the said land was surplus in the hands of the parties, these land have, therefore, to be excluded from the 72 bighas 75 biswas and 101/2 biswansis of land in which the appellants claim interest. The assertion of the State of Uttar Pradesh that most of the land in dispute have been taken over by the State as ceiling surplus land is not disputed. On account of the fact that ceiling surplus had been determined in hands of the respondent-company and our present order holding that the appellants have interest in regard to about 64 bighas of land out of the land in dispute afresh determination of the surplus has to be done. The appellant should be entitled to be put into possession of the lands out of 64 bighas which would be within the ceiling limit. We, therefore, direct that the competent authority shall proceed to determine the ceiling surplus under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, within three months from today and once that is done, the appellants shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the area coming within the ceiling limit and the balance shall vest in the Uttar Pradesh Government The competent authority shall forward a copy of his determination within two weeks after three months to the Registry of this Court. We make it clear on the basis of the statement made by counsel of the appellants and the respondent- company that there is no inter-se claim on either side against the other. The matter shall be re-listed after four months from today. " Prescribed Authority in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court, vide its order dated Oct. 11,1990, declared about 14 Bighas out of 64 Bighas land as surplus. In pursuance of the observations of the Supreme Court the land holders filed appeals before the appellate authority under the Act, who has modi fied the order of the Prescribed Authority by holding that only, about 2-2-104 Bighas of land belonging to Jagdish Pal Singh, one of the land-holders, is surplus.
(3.) WHEN the appeals were pending before the appellate authority against the order dated October 11, 1990 of the Prescribed Authority two person, viz. , Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar, who were two out of four persons who had filed writ petition No. 12900 of 1981, applied for impleadment before the appellate authority. Their applications were allowed an they were impleaded as parties to the appeals filed by the landholders. Being dissatisfied with the order of appellate authority Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar have filed writ petition No. 35613 of 1991. Meerut Development Authority also was not a party to the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority, but as it has occupied some of the land in dispute of D. C. M. , which were declared surplus, without any order of allotment under Section 27 or/and without any permission under Section 25 of the Act, it was also impleaded as a party in the appeal pending before the appellate authority as the appellate authority modified the order of the Prescribed Authority by reducing surplus area of the landholders, Meerut Development Authority has filed three writ petitions, numbers being 17522, 17523 and 17524 of 1991. State of Uttar Pradesh, has also filed three writ petitions viz. Nos. 9758, 9759 and 9760 of 1991. Two other persons namely, Smt. Omwati and Shastri Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. have also challenged same orders by two separate writ petitions, being Writ Petitions No. 17525 and 11578 of 1991, respectively.;