- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and also perused the record of the case.
(2.) BY means of this petition, petitioners pray for a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess them from plot No. 103 (area 29 acre) plot No. 501 (old) area 29 acre, situated in village Chhahun Tappa Jhankaui Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna Tonsil Kasia, Distt. Padrauna, till the objection filed by them under Sec. 11 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short the Act is decided. It appears that petitioners filed ob jections under Sec. 11 (2) of the Act in the ceiling proceedings initiated against them before the Prescribed Authority. They have also applied for interim relief, but no orders were passed by the Prescribed Authority on the said application for interim relief. Con sequently, petitioners have approached this court and filed the present petition. Time was granted to the learned Standing counsel to file counter-affidavit by this court, but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed. I do not considered it neces sary to wait for the counter and as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of this petition finally at this stage.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the provision of Sec. 11 (2) read with Sec. 12 and Sec. 14, the petitioners could not be dispossessed from the land in dispute, till the objection filed by them is decided by the Prescribed Animosity. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 and Sections 12 and 14 of the Act provide as under: "11 (2) The Prescribed Authority shall, on application made within thirty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1) by a tenure holder aggrieved by such order passed in his ab sence and on sufficient cause being shown for his absence set aside the order and allow such tenure-holder to be filed objection against the statement prepared under Section 10 and proceed to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 12. 12. Determination of the surplus land by the prescribed authority where an objection is filed. . . . . . . . . . (1) Where an objection has been filed under sub-section (2) of Sec. 10 or under sub-section (2) of Sec. 11, or because of any appellate order under Sec. 13 the prescribed authority shall, after afford ing the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence, decide the ob jections after recording his reasons and determine the surplus land. 14. Acquisition of surplus land.- (1) The Collector shall at any time after- (a) in case, where the order passed under sub-section (1) of Sec. 11 has become final, the date of its so becoming final, or (b) in case, where no appeal has been preferred under Sec. 13, the date of expiry of the period of limitation provided therefore; or (c) in case, where an appeal has been preferred under Sec. 13, the date of its decision; take possession of the surplus land determined under Sec. 11, Section 12 or 13 and also of any unaltered crop or fruits of trees not being crops or fruits to which sub-section (1) of Sec. 15 ap plies, after evicting any person found in occupa tion of such land crops or fruits and may for that purpose us or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. From the joint reading of the aforesaid sec tions it is apparent that the tenure-holder against whom the proceedings are pending under the Act and whose land has been declared as surplus, cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute till the matters are decided finally. The Prescribed Authority should have granted the interim relief in favour of the petitioners. Reliance has also been placed by the leaned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission, upon the decision in case of Munna Lal v. State of U. P. , 1977r. D. 151, wherein it was observed by this court as under- "the learned Standing counsel has urged that as the application under Sec. 11 (2) is pending before the Prescribed Authority, then he will take proper decision in the matter, but I am of the view that in view of Sec. 14 (1) (a) to (c) the petitioner cannot be dispossessed on the basis of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority against the original tenure holder, because of pendency of the application under Sec. 11 (2 ). " In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition serves to be allowed. The writ petition succeeds and is al lowed. The respondents are directed not to take steps to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute till disposal of objection under Sec. 11 (2) of the Act. It is, however, observed that the application/objection filed under Sec, 11 (2) of the Act shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a cer tified copy of this order is produced before the Prescribed Authority. Petition allowed. .;