RAM KRISHNA MATH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dtd. 29/7/1992 passed by the respondent no.2 and impugned order dtd. 20/1/1994 passed by the respondent no.3. They have also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere into the possession of the petitioners over the land in question and not to take its possession from the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority committed manifest error while holding that the petitioners, who are the unrecorded tenure holders, are not legally entitled to file objection under Sec. 11 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. He submits that in fact the petitioners had acquired right, title and interest in the land in question which has been determined as surplus area and, as such, their objections under Sec. 11(2) was maintainable before the Prescribed Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment and order dtd. 21/3/2022 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 3000016 of 1994, Ram Krishna Math and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held that if a person has acquired right, title and interest by a legal and valid instrument then he would be required to be issued notice even if his name is not recorded as tenure holder in the revenue record and it has further been held that if the land of such a person is treated to be land holding of the tenure holder to whom notice under Sec. 10(2) of the 1960 Act was issued and proceedings were finalized, such a person would be entitled to file objection under Sec. 11(2) of the 1960 Act. He submits that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has passed orders impugned on the wrong premise and, as such, the same are liable to be quashed.