FAUDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ram Surat Saroj learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C.Singh for the respondent nos.6 to 8 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondent does not propose to file any counter affidavit and he contends that the matter can be disposed of on the basis of material which is already on record together with a perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.1.1986. A copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority has been placed before this Court. In proceedings under? the U.P.Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960? against? one Raj Bahadur Kunwar the Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 22.1.1986 declared an area of 1.94 acres of land as surplus in the irrigated sense, and accordingly the said land was to be excluded from the holding of the tenure holder. It is undisputed that the said order remained unchallenged and has become final.

(3.) SRI Ram Surat Saroj learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from this even fif resh allotment has to be made, it is the petitioners who are to be considered as they were entitled for allotment at the time when the land came to be declared surplus on 23.1.1986. He contends that the authority be directed to act accordingly. SRI R.C.Singh learned counsel for the contesting respondents urges that the respondents have absolutely no concern with the 1.94 acre of land that was declared surplus and as a matter of fact the impugned order has been passed in compliance of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.3.2011 which does not require any interference. If the petitioners are seeking any relief of saving their allotments the same can relate to 1.94 acres as per the Schedule described in the judgment dated 22.1.86 and not beyond the same. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel for the Gaon Sabha have supported the impugned order. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and having perused the record it is evident that the parties do not dispute that the land which was declared surplus was only to the tune of 1.94 acres? as per the judgment dated 22.1.86 and as recorded by the High Court in the earlier judgment dated 23.3.2011.