MOTI LALS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which arises for determination in this writ petition is whether a tenure-holder is entitled for restitution of possession of land declared as surplus on his success in an appeal filed under Section 13 of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Will it make any difference where the Collector, after taking over possession, put allottee in possession after allotting it under Section 27 (4) of the Act? As the question raised is purely question of law for which facts have been set-out in impugned order passed by prescribed authority and, whereas, the counsel for petitioners and standing counsel have been heard on merits, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage of admission.

(2.) The facts, as set-out in impugned order, are that prescribed authority declared disputed land as surplus against which appeal was allowed and order of prescribed authority was set-aside. As the Collector took possession of disputed land after its being declared as surplus despite pendency of appeal and allottees were put in possession after its allotment, the petitioners moved an application for restitution of possession before prescribed authority. The prescribed authority rejected petitioners' application for the reason that petitioners claim themselves to be in possession and, therefore, their application is not maintainable. He also held that as name of allottees stand recorded in revenue papers, therefore, there is no force in the contention of petitioners. He held that the petitioners cannot seek any relief before him but they can initiate proceedings under Section 27 (4) of the Act before Commissioner of the Division. For said reasons, the prescribed authority rejected petitioners application for restitution giving rise to this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioners has argued that as Collector took over possession of disputed land treating it to be surplus during pendency of appeal, the petitioners are entitled for restitution of possession over disputed land and the allotment made cannot be impediment in way to deprive delivery of possession to petitioners. He further argued that the prescribed authority went wrong in considering petitioners to be in possession when petitioners specifically prayed for possession. The learned standing counsel opposed the arguments.