SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) On 6.4.1979, the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') declared 76 bighas, 16 biswas and 11 Biswansis of land as surplus of D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd., which preferred an Appeal which was also dismissed on 30.7.1987. Against the Appellate Order a writ petition being Writ C No. 14929 of 1987 was filed by D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd. Even before 17.4.2002 when this High Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 14929 of 1987 had maintained the order of Prescribed Authority, the surplus land as was declared by the Prescribed Authority was taken over by the State and was allotted to the petitioners and possession was also handed over to them. D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd., which was challenging the orders of the Authorities under the Ceiling Act, was also challenging the pattas which were granted to the petitioners as were executed in their favour on 26.3.1986 and, therefore, had moved an application under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act. This application came to be rejected on 24.3.1988 and was challenged by means of a writ petition being Writ C No. 6387 of 1988 which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 16.1.2012. The High Court held that D.C.M. Shriram Industries Ltd. had no ground to challenge the leases/pattas in favour of the petitioners and other bhumidhars as it's challenge to the land being declared surplus had been turned down by the High Court on 17.4.2002. The portion of the order dated 16.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 6387 of 1988 which was read out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is being reproduced here as under:- "The order of the High Court has the affect of affirming the declaration of surplus land, which has been taken possession by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was allotted and possession was delivered. He submits that whatever may have been substance in the plea of the petitioner with reference to the interim order, which was operating in his favour during the pendency of the appeal, the same has lost all efficacy in view of the conclusion of the ceiling proceedings under the judgement and order of the High Court. Petition has no substance now qua the challenge to the allotment made of the surplus land in favour of the respondents."
(2.) After the writ petition was dismissed the patta holders including the petitioners were entered as bhumidhars with non-transferable rights on 21.7.2014. In the meantime, the land in question was declared abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Thereafter, on 23/27.7.2014, an order was passed by which the order dated 21.7.2014 was recalled. This necessitated the filing of the Writ Petition No. 51745 of 2014, which was ultimately allowed and the order dated 23/27.7.2014 was quashed on 28.3.2017. However, in the meantime, the State of U.P. filed a case in the Court of the Commissioner Meerut Mandal, Meerut, being case no. 1 of 2015 ( State v. Phool Singh and others) under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act, 1960. In this case, the pattas of the petitioners were also under challenge and they were arrayed as opposite parties in it and, therefore, being aggrieved by the filing of the case, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. On 13.4.2015, an interim order was passed which was as follows:- "Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has been filed by Collector for cancellation of the pattas only on the ground that the pattas were executed by the Assistant Collector, who was not the competent authority. He submits that under section 43 of the Act, power of the Collector has been delegated to the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Incharge of the Sub Division. Accordingly, patta executed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Incharge of the Sub Division, cannot be challenged. The matter requires consideration. The respondents are granted one month time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing,further proceedings in Case No. 1/2015 (State v. Phool Singh and Others), pending before the Court of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, shall remain stayed. "
(3.) The petitioners' counsel has submitted that the Case No. 1 of 2015 could not be proceeded with and, therefore, by means of the instant writ petition, has prayed that the entire proceedings of Case No. 1 of 2015 filed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Collector Meerut, be quashed. He has made the following submissions:- I. The proceedings as were being sought to be initiated were barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 27(6) proceedings could not have been initiated after five years from the date of settlement. The State was always in the know of the fact that pattas were granted. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the counter affidavit which the State had filed in Writ Petition No. 6387 of 1988 which was filed by DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. for the setting aside of the pattas of the petitioners, the State, in paragraph 26 to the Counter Affidavit, had stated that the Collector had delegated powers to the Assistant Collector and, therefore, the Assistant Collector had the Authority to settle the pattas. The paragraph no. 26 of the Counter Affidavit in writ petition no. 6387 of 2008 is being reproduced here as under :- "That in continuation to what has been stated in the preceding paras, it is stated that the Collector has been defined under Section 3(4) of the U.P.Z.A. And L.R. Act. The Collector means an Officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and includes an Assistant Collector of Ist Class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under the Act. The Sub Divisional Officer is the Assistant Collector, Ist Class and as such he has the authority to settle the lease." ;