PREMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Govind Krishna and Sri Shiv Naresh Singh, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel and Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya holding brief of Sri Praveen Kumar Giri, for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Collector, Mirzapur (respondent-2) dated 22.1.2013, rejecting the representation of the petitioners and holding that lease granted to the petitioners of the surplus land came to an end on 10.9.1996 and 22.11.1996, when the surplus land has been restored to the tenure-holder under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been further prayed that mandamus be issued directing respondent-2 to protect right, title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute.

(2.) In the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act, initiated against Anand Deo Giri (now represented by respondents-5 and 6), the Prescribed Authority by order dated 31.5.1977 declared certain area of land as surplus with him. Anand Deo Giri filed an appeal from the order of Prescribed Authority- It appears that during pendency of the appeal, Anand Deo Giri gave his choice for surplus land on 22.8.1980, which has been accepted by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 30.8.1980. Thereafter, Deputy Collector, Lalganj, Mirzapur (respondent-4) granted pattas to the petitioners of the surplus land on 13.2.1987 and 11.4.1987. It appears that after decision in the appeal, the tenure-holder revised his choice and prayed for taking possession over the land, other than the land mentioned in his choice dated 22.8.1980. Prescribed Authority by order dated 10.9.1996 accepted the revised choice of the tenure-holder. The tenure-holder then filed an application for restoring possession over the land which was earlier taken as surplus land. The application of the tenure-holder was allowed and parwana for restoring possession to the tenure-holder over it was issued on 22.11.1996.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, an application for recall of the orders dated 10.9.1996 and 22.11.1996 was filed. Prescribed Authority by order dated 23.7.1997, rejected the application of the petitioners. Thereafter the litigation between the tenure-holder and lease holders was gone before the revenue Courts for deleting the mutation of the names of the petitioners and recording the name of the tenure-holder over the land, which was earlier declared as surplus by order dated 30.8.1980, which was also decided in favour of the tenure-holders.