YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Goswami, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, the learned Standing Counsel and Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of the private respondents.
(2.) THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION The respondents take a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant writ petition, which is noted as under. Sri Srivastava refers to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on 20 November 1986 in Banwasi Sewa Ashram Vs. State of U.P. and Others1 and to the following observations as entered therein to submit that the State had unambiguously conceded to accepting the decisions rendered by the Additional District Judges [ADJ] in accordance with the procedural framework evolved. Reference in this respect is made to the following observation as entered in that decision: - "10. (3) When the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible, the State Government shall (and it is agreed before us) honour the said decision and proceed to implement the same....."
(3.) According to Sri Srivastava, the directions as framed clearly debar the State from assailing the orders passed by the ADJ in suo moto appeal. In view thereof, it was his contention that the instant writ petition could not be maintained. Sri Srivastava further refers to the fact that the Supreme Court had in that order itself recorded that parties were agreed that if a claim were ultimately to be established before the authorities, an appropriate title deed would be issued to the claimants. Sri Srivastava also refers to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to parties to move it for directions as and when necessary. Referring then to the subsequent order of 18 July 1994 passed in Banwasi Sewa Ashram, Sri Srivastava draws the attention of the Court to the directions contained therein to the effect that the Revenue Secretary of the State was to implement the decisions rendered by the various ADJ's. In the backdrop of the observations as made and contained in the aforementioned two orders, it was submitted that the State was clearly estopped from assailing the orders passed by the ADJ's |and that consequently the writ petitions at their behest must be held to be not maintainable.;