- (1.) SINCE the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these petitions are being decided by this com­mon judgment.
(2.) IN all these writ petitions, the pe­titioners have assailed the order dated 28th July 1989 passed by Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Additional District Magistrate, Nainital and the order dated 24th October 1990, passed by the Ad­ditional Commissioner (Administration), Kumaon Division, Nainital. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, according to the petitioners, are that petitioners Devendra Kumar Shukla, Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Smt. Maya Shukla, who are brothers and sisters and their father Indra Dev Shukla, entered into a family settlement in the year 1960 and memorandum of the settlement was ex­ecuted on 15th July 1967 and the en­tire holding was divided into four shares. The petitioners got 1/4th share each in the land situate in village Gangapur Patia and they came over exclusive pos­session of their share in the year 1960. Subsequently, the matter was resettled between the petitioners and other ten­ure-holders and a gift deed dated 13th March 1972 was executed by Indra Dev Shukla in favour of the petitioners and the same was registered. A notice un­der Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposi­tion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act) was issued to Indra Dev Shukla, the father of the pe­titioners and irrigated land measuring 9.49 Hectares was proposed to be de­clared a surplus vacant land. Indradev Shukla contested the notice on the ground inter alia that a family settlement took place in the year 1960 and memo­randum was executed on 15th July 1967.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the matter in dispute went upto the Hon'ble High Court and was finally decided by the High Court vide order dated 4-4-1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 2333 of 1977, Indra Dev Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others. The order was passed to the following effect : “The result is that this writ petition is partly allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority relating to strength of the family members of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the appel­late authority for deciding the appeal on that question afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. The stay order shall stand dis­charged. “ ;