MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from plots Nos. 217/4, 217/3, new plot Nos. 279 and 161 situate in village Jurawan Chhapra Tappa Batesera, pargana Sidhus Jobna, Tehsil Hata, district Padrauna (old district Deoria). The further relief prayed by the petitioner is for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's objection filed under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The learned standing counsel was granted time twice to file counter -affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed till date. The learned Standing counsel stated that controversy involved in this case does not require any counter -affidavit and the writ petition can be disposed of finally even without filing of the counter affidavit. As the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the petition may be disposed of at this stage without waiting for counter -affidavit, on the joint agreement of the parties learned counsel, 1 dispose of the writ petition without waiting for the counter -affidavit.

(2.) THE petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus as said above and has contended that since his application under Section 11(2) is pending before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the Prescribed Authority should not dispossess the petitioner on the basis of the order passed against the original tenure -holder. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that a proceeding originally started against Sri Surya Pratap Narain Singh who had sold the plots in dispute by a registered sale -deed to one Nagarmal. It is stated that the petitioner is a purchaser from Nagarmal. His contention is that when he has purchased the property from Nagarmal who is successor in interest of Surya Pratap Narain Singh, then his property should not have been clubbed with the holdings of original tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority has committed an error in law in treating the property of the purchaser from Nagarmal as the original holding of Surya Pratap Narain Singh. Admittedly the petitioner has filed an application under Section 11(2) before the Prescribed Authority which has not yet been disposed of and the question that whether the petitioner was a necessary party in the proceeding which commenced against the original tenure -holder is still to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so long the aforesaid application is not disposed of finally the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the plots in question. Since this factual aspect of the case has not been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel and as the application of the petitioner under Section 11(2) is pending, therefore, I am of the view that till the disposal of the petitioner's application under Section 11(2), the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the plots in dispute, if he is in actual possession of the same till date. As an appeal is also pending against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the State also cannot take possession of the land in dispute.