Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) This and the many connected writ petitions raise the same question. The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim that they have become sirdars under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. They pray that the notice issued by the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 2, for dispossessing the petitioners with effect from April 1, 1967, be quashed. The various learned counsel in these writ petitions are agreed that the facts in all the petitions are generally the same and they can all be decided" by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 795 of 1967, filed by Sri Jagner Singh, has been taken as the leading case.
(2.) It appears that in February 1950 the Executive Engineer, Northern Division, Ganges Canal, Roorkee, auctioned some canal land for being given on lease for agricultural purposes. The petitioner being the highest bidder he was given a lease of 26 acres for Rs. 1725/-. The Executive Engineer executed a deed of lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of six years commencing from April 1, 1950. After the expiry of this lease, a fresh lease was executed for a further period of five years beginning from April 1, 1956, which related to a smaller area, on payment of a lesser amount of rent. The second respondent executed a fresh lease on February 2, 1962, for a period of five years commencing from April 1, 1962, in favour of the petitioner. This lease covered yet a smaller area of land. The rent was also reduced further Under this lease approximately 9 acres of land was given to the petitioner. In December, 1966, the petitioner received a notice from the Executive Engineer that the petitioner's lease would come to an end on March 31, 1967. The petitioner may not raise any crop which may not be reaped by March 31, 1967. He intimated that the State Government intends to give this land to Harijans and landless labourers after April 1, 1967. The petitioner made representations to the Executive Engineer against this notice. He also submitted a representation to the Irrigation Minister of the State. The State Government has not acceded to the petitioner's request to continue the lease in his favour.
(3.) The petitioner stated that when he came here with a view to file a writ petition, he was advised by his counsel that in view of the notification No. 1780/I.C./277/C-1953 dated March 31, 1955, the petitioner has acquired the status of a sirdar in respect of the land in dispute. The Government, hence, has no interest left in the land. The notice issued by the second respondent was void and unenforceable. It was prayed that this notice be quashed.;