VISHWANATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Vishwa Nath Prasad has filed present writ petition, mentioning therein that his father, Laxmi Narayan and Satya Narain were real brothers, and after the death of Satya Narayan, his son Shiv Mangal Singh, became legal heir of his father, In the consolidation proceedings, chaks of petitioner and Shiv Mangal Singh were carved out, separately. Against petitioner, no ceiling proceedings had been initiated, however, Shiv Mangal Singh was served with a notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on4. and Holdings Act, 1960. In the said proceeding, as Shiv Mangal Singh died, petitioner was arrayed as party in the capacity of sole owner, and in the said ceiling proceeding Gate. No. 702 Ka (area 05r19-10) and 472 (area 07-15-0) of Khata No. 181 of village Salaiya Khurd, Pargana Khairagarh, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad, were declared as surplus land, vide order dated 28. 9. 1979. Plot No. 735 of khata No, 181 was not declared as surplus land. In spite of the fact that at no point of time Plot No. 735 of Khata No. 181 was not declared as surplus land 'in ceiling proceedings, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja wrongly presumed that Plot No. 735 of Khata No. 181 (area 10 bigha 6 Biswa 4 Dhur) was declared as surplus land, and the same was given on patta to Awadhesh Prasad and Satyendra, respondent Nos 6 and 7 vide order dated 26. 6. 1980 and 17. 6. 1981 measuring 0. 579 Hectare to each one of them, total area of lease came to 1. 158 Hectare and the remaining area 1. 139 Hectare was left to the petitioner. Petitioner contends that said patta had been wrongly executed and entry was made by Lekhpal accordingly. Petitioner submits that he was unaware of the said proceeding being undertaken, and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the year 1994 came into possession forcibly, for which, petitioner submits that he initiated proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. Petitioner has contended that in the said proceeding there was clear admission by Tehsildar Meja that Plot No. 735 of Khata No. 181 was never declared as surplus in ceiling proceeding and the said plot is free from the ceiling proceeding. Petitioner submits that the said proceeding had been rejected, and he has filed application under Section 27 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on 2,7. 1996. Said application of petitioner has been rejected oh 18. 6. 2004. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IN the present writ petition counter and, rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and during pendency of the present writ petition, various orders have' been passed the last one being the order dated 17. 5. 2006, which is being quoted. below: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the standing counsel. The facts constituting grievance of the petitioner are that although Plot No. 735 was never declared surplus still the same was erroneously allotted to opp. Parties 6 and 7. IN this connection learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order dated 28. 9:79 from a perusal of which it is indicated that as a matter of fact plot Nos. 702 and 742 etc. were declared surplus. IN these facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be best attained if an interim mandamus is issued commanding the S. D. O. Meja, Allahabad opp. Party No. 3 to pass appropriate orders whether plot No. 735 had been declared surplus if not, he shall take immediate action for restoring possession of plot No. 735 to the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to move application before S. D. O. , Meja Allahabad, Opp. Party No. 3 within three weeks from today. The appropriate orders as stated supra shall be /passed within one month next thereafter. , It is ordered accordingly. Opp. Party No. 3 shall file compliance report through standing counsel immediately after one month. List this matter in the 4th week of July, 200617. 5. 2006 Sd/-S. N. Srivastava"