Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.)Heard Sri V.D. Ojha learned Senior Counsel in support of the writ petitions and Sri Sanjay Goswami learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
(2.)Both these writ petitions assail the order dated 29 March 1996 pursuant to which a settlement of surplus land made in favour of the petitioners under Section 27 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ["the 1960 Act"] has come to be cancelled. They are with the consent of parties taken up for disposal together.
(3.)The Court for the purposes of disposal deems it sufficient to notice the essential facts pertaining to Writ-C No. 17180 of 1996. The petitioners claim to be landless labourers. In proceedings initiated under the 1960 Act, the agricultural land of one Smt. Girja Kumari was declared surplus and came to vest in the State of U.P. The aforesaid land is stated to have been settled in favour of the petitioners on 19 November 1990 by the Sub Divisional Officer in accordance with the provisions made in Section 27 of the 1960 Act. The details of the leases as granted are set-forth in paragraph-8 of the writ petition. It transpires from the record that on 25 August 1993 the Naib Tehsildar concerned forwarded a note to the Commissioner Jhansi division raising issues with respect to the validity of the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. Upon receipt of that note, the Commissioner by an order dated 25 August 1993 drew proceedings and transferred them for adjudication to the Additional Commissioner. Pursuant to notices issued, the petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statements. The objection taken by the State respondents to the validity of the settlement made was that the petitioners were unlawfully allotted land even though they were not residents of the concerned village. It was asserted that the petitioner No. 1 was not a landless laborer but a priest of a temple. Insofar as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it was stated that he was a jeweller also not residing in the village in question. A similar objection was taken in respect of the petitioner No. 3. In the counter affidavit filed in these proceedings it was averred that none of the petitioners were residents of village Tinduhi. In paragraph-3 details have been given of the land held by the petitioners in different villages. It was essentially asserted that the petitioners were neither landless labourers nor members of the Gram Sabha of Tinduhi and consequently they were ineligible to have been allotted the land under Section 27 of the 1960 Act. It was also alleged that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were the cousins of the then Gram Pradhan and that the settlement made in their favour was clearly illegal and in abuse of the process of law. The respondents asserted that despite numerous landless labourers belonging to the Scheduled Castes being available and eligible for allotment, their claims were overlooked and the land settled in favour of the petitioners illegally and as an outcome of the nexus between them and the erstwhile Gram Pradhan. The impugned order further records that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in their statements recorded before the respondents on 20 April 1991 had admitted to being residents of village Pachpahra. Taking into consideration the aforesaid glaring facts, the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order proceeded to annul the leases granted in favour of the petitioners. When the Court entertained the writ petition on 22 July 1996, interim protection was accorded to the petitioners with a learned Judge providing that if the petitioners are in possession, they shall remain as such over the land in dispute. Pursuant to that interim order, the petitioners are stated to have continued to occupy the land in question.