KAILASHIYA Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out Of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioners were served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. They contested the notice on various grounds. The Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 8-10-1976, determined 49 bighas 14 biswas land as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed on 8-7-1977 and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. After remand the Prescribed Authority again, vide its order dated 26-8-1978, determined the same area as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed and again the case was remanded. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 6-1-1979, accepted the petitioners' contentions and held that they had no surplus land and the notice was discharged. A copy of this order is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. That order became final.

(3.) ON the other hand it was urged on behalf of the allottees that when during the pendency of the appeal possession of surplus land was taken and when settlement was being made under section 27 of the Act, the petitioners should have approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the State of U. P. not to proceed with the settlement and that since the settlement of surplus land with the allottees was an act of State, it could not be treated as illegal. It was next contended that there is no question of the Prescribed Authority allowing restitution of possession in exercise of inherent power because section 37 of the Act extends the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code only to proceedings in which the Prescribed Authority is holding an inquiry or hearing an objection. Lastly according to the learned counsel after the rejection of the application given under section 27(4) of the Act by the Commissioner, the petitioners should amend their petition and implead the Commissioner as a party and sought a relief for cancellation of the Pattas because in case they do not do so, legal difficulties would arise.