Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10 June 2016 passed by the third respondent (Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur) allowing the application filed by Gunjeshwari Devi, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 under section 27(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 19601, as well as the order dated 17 October 2016 rejecting the restoration application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that certain land of Gunjeshwari Rai was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act. The authorities executed pattas in respect thereof in favour of the petitioner and several other persons. However, in appeal filed by him, the Appellate Authority modified the order of the Prescribed Authority and held that out of 4.95 acres earlier declared as surplus, only 14 decimal is surplus. The said order has attained finality. Gunjeshwari Rai thereafter filed an application for cancellation of the lease executed in respect of the land, which has not been found to be surplus by the Appellate Authority. The application was rejected by the Commissioner by order dated 12 October 1992. Aggrieved by the said order, Gunjeshwari Rai filed Writ C No. 496 of 1993, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 4 November 2011 and the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application filed under section 27(4) of the Act was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh consideration. Thereafter, the third respondent, after hearing the private respondents as well as the allottees, allowed the application in part. The pattas executed on 4 December 1982 over 14 decimal of land of Village Kaithawaliya alias Baragadahi were maintained whereas, in respect of remaining land, it was cancelled. The District Magistrate was required to deliver possession of the 1 Act land to the private respondents in respect of which the patta has been cancelled. A further recommendation was made that in case any other land of Gaon Sabha is available, then the case of the allottees whose lease has been cancelled be considered subject to eligibility. It seems that after the passing of the said order, when possession was sought to be delivered to the private respondents, the petitioner, who was one of the allottees affected by the order passed by the Commissioner, applied for setting aside of the said order. The application has been rejected by order dated 17 October 2016. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the validity of these orders.
(3.) It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner while passing the order dated 10 June 2013 has made a recommendation to the District Magistrate to allot some other land to the petitioner and other allottees. However, it has not been done so far, while on the other hand, the petitioner is sought to be dispossessed.;