B. Dikshit, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act') in respect of plot No. 407/1 and 380/1 of Khata No. 330 and 380/1 respectively situated in village Pachauro Tehsil Mau District Jhansi.
(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are that these plots were recorded in the name of opposite parties Laloo and Gubura in basic year and an objection was filed by petitioners claiming themselves to be Bhumidhar, The plots in dispute were declared surplus land of petitioner by prescribed authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1961, (in short 'Ceiling Act'). An appeal was preferred by petitioner against declaration of land as surplus. After decision by prescribed authority possession was taken over and subsequently the land was leased out to Lallu and Gubura under Section 27 of the Ceiling Act. It appears that while appeal was pending, the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding (Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force and, therefore, the proceedings in which prescribed authority passed judgement dated 30.9.1974 abated and fresh notices were issued to petitioners under amended law. The petitioners have now claimed, after passing of abatement order, that in view of abatement of proceedings they are entitled for restitution of land and the name of petitioners be recorded after deleting the names of opposite parties Lallu and Gubura The Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.4.1982 rejected petitioners' objection. The appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners preferred revision which too was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners contended that as proceedings declaring petitioners land as surplus abated, the petitioners are entitled for restitution of possession over disputed land of which he stands deprived due to its declaration as surplus by prescribed authority and claimed that they be recorded over the disputed land in revenue records during consolidation operation. He argued that the consolidation authorities went wrong in holding that restitution of possession can be made by prescribed authority alone and, therefore, the petitioners objection was liable to be rejected. Sri S.K. Chaturvedi learned counsel for contesting opposite party submitted that despite abatement of proceedings the petitioners are not entitled to be recorded during consolidation operation unless the leases granted in favour of opposite parties after passing of order dated 30.9.1974 and taking over of possession on that basis by the State are cancelled.;