SHISHIR KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioners for quashing the order dated 2.6.1999 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 8/2/2/9 of 1996-97 (Ram La/v. State of U.P. and others).
(2.) PETITIONERS before this Court are allottees of surplus land declared by au­thorities below of respondent No. 2. It appears that proceedings under Section 10(2)of U.P. Imposition of Ceil­ing on Land Holdings Act were initiated against Ram Lal, respondent No. 2. Pre­scribed Authority vide its order dated 31.12.1994 declared 1.640 hectares of land as surplus and respondent No. 2 was directed to submit his choice of plots to be declared as surplus but no choice was given by the respondent No. 2 and pre­scribed authority vide its order dated 31.1.1995 declared Plot No. 174 Minjumla measuring 1.640 hectares of respondent No. 2 as surplus. Accordingly parwana of Amaldaramad was issued and necessary entries were made in revenue records. Possession over the surplus land was taken by respondent No. 3 on 3.2.1995 and on 11.2.1995 allotment of surplus land was duly made in favour of petitioners on the basis of patta. Petitioners that possession of land was given in favour of petitioners.
(3.) IT appears that respondent No. 2 aggrieved by order dated 31.12.1994, filed an appeal before respondent No 1. Respondent No. 2 filed original sale deed dated 22.10.1983 executed by Sri Shiv Govind Singh in favour of Ashok Kumar S/o Lal Bahadur and it was stated that he could not file a copy of sale deed before prescribed authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding recorded by prescribed authority but allowed the appeal by orders dated 28.10.1995 and 31.10.1994 and set aside the order and remanded the matter to trial Court with a direction to decide in the light of evidence whether respondent No. 2 was real owner of land mentioned in sale deed or whether respondent No. 2 was entitled to get any benefit of sale deed. Prescribed authority in compliance of order dated 28.10.1995 provided opportunity of producing evidence and decided the matter vide its judgment and order dated 24.1.1997 and confirmed the earlier order dated 31.12.1994. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by aforesaid order filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. Petitioners submit that before Appellate Authority peti­tioner has not been impleaded as party in trial Court neither in appeal filed by respondent No. 2. As soon as petitioners came to know regarding pendency of aforesaid appeal, moved an impleadment application on 3.6.1997 before respon­dent No. 1 on the ground that they have been allotted pattas in their favour and they are in possession over the land allotted to them, therefore, they are neces­sary party to be impleaded. The impleadment application was allowed. Respon­dent No. 1 by impugned order dated 2.6.1999 illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 24.1.1997 and discharged the notice issued to respon­dent No. 2 and has held that there is no surplus land of respondent No. 2.;