SATISH CHAND MATHUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. All these writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 12900 of 1981, have been filed challenging the order dated 4. 3. 1991 passed by the appellate authority modifying the order of the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)! Writ Petition No, 12900 of 1981 has been filed against the order dated 15. 10. 1981 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners therein against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 28. 1. 1981, rejecting their applications for allotment of the surplus land under Section 27 (3) of the Act. As these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Necessary facts stated herein below have been taken from writ petitions No. 9760 of 1991 and 35613 of 1991.

(2.) PREDECESSORS of Sri Satveer Singh, Sri Yashveer Singh and Sri Jagdish Pal Singh, who are respondents in these writ petitions and who will herein after be referred to as land-holders, had executed lease in 1936 of about 375 Bighas of their land in favour of Delhi Cloth and General Mills (hereinafter referred to as D. C. M.) for twenty-five years. After the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Z. A. Act) compensation statement was prepared under Chapter IX-A of the said Act showing D. C. M. as Adhiwasi of the land. Land-holders predecessors filed objection claiming rights of Bhumidhari over that land. Their objection was initially upheld by the Compensation Officer vide order dated 3. 1. 1957, but appeals filed by the D. C. M. against the above order, were allowed. Against the said appellate order second appeals, filed before the Board of Revenue, by predecessors of the land-holders, were dismissed.

(3.) WHEN the appeals were pending before the appellate authority against the order dated October 11, 1990 of the Prescribed Authority two person, viz. , Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar, who were two out of four persons who had filed writ petition No. 12900 of 1981, applied for impleadment before the appellate authority. Their applications were allowed an they were impleaded as parties to the appeals filed by the landholders. Being dissatisfied with the order of appellate authority Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar have filed writ petition No. 35613 of 1991. Meerut Development Authority also was not a party to the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority, but as it has occupied some of the land in dispute of D. C. M. , which were declared surplus, without any order of allotment under Section 27 or/and without any permission under Section 25 of the Act, it was also impleaded as a party in the appeal pending before the appellate authority as the appellate authority modified the order of the Prescribed Authority by reducing surplus area of the landholders, Meerut Development Authority has filed three writ petitions, numbers being 17522, 17523 and 17524 of 1991.