CHIDDA AND OTHERS Vs. AZIZUR REHMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 28.5.1985 passed by respondent No. 3 and 27.5.1983 passed by the Special Judge, Ghaziabad in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act'.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that originally the land in dispute was owned by Abdul Majeed Khan, the father of respondents No. 1 and 2. The land in dispute was declared as surplus by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter on 30.6.1981, pattas of the same were granted in favour of the petitioners. It was on 23.5.1984 that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Sec. 27(4) of the Act for cancellation of the said pattas on the ground that the land in dispute was never vested in the State and was not liable to be allotted in favour of the petitioners as at the relevant time, appeal filed by them was pending disposal before the appellate authority. The pattas executed in favour of the petitioners were, therefore, liable to be cancelled. The application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 was objected to and opposed by the petitioners who contended that the land in dispute was declared as surplus and vested in State and a notification under Sec. 14(1) of the Act was also made. Thereafter, the same was allotted to them in accordance with law. The contesting respondents, therefore, had no right to get the said pattas cancelled. The respondent No. 3 in his judgment and order dated 28.5.1985 framed four questions. While dealing with the question No. 1, it was held that notification under Sec. 14 of the Act was never made in respect of the land in dispute before the same was allotted, therefore, there was no question of vesting the land in the State. It was held that at the relevant time, the appeal filed by the tenure-holder was pending before the appellate authority. The notification could be made after decision of the appeal. It was also held that there was nothing on the record to show that any notification was ever made under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. Therefore, the allotment of the land was wholly illegal. The other three questions were also answered in favour of the contesting respondents and it was held that the pattas executed in favour of the petitioners were illegal and were liable to be cancelled and by its judgment and order dated 28.5.1985 the said respondent cancelled pattas granted in favour the petitioners on 30.6.1981, hence the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the respondent No. 3 has acted illegally in cancelling the pattas executed in favour of the petitioners. It was urged that the allotment in their favour was made after the land in dispute was notified under Sec. 14(1) of the Act and vested in the State. The view taken to the contrary is manifestly erroneous and illegal.