NANAK Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.P. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh for the petitioners, Sri Vijay Kumar Rai for the contesting respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Sri Rai learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these writ petitions and the challenge as addressed at the behest of the petitioners by submitting as follows.

(3.) According to Sri Rai, the land held by the private respondents here which was treated as surplus under the provisions of the 1960 Act and clubbed in the account of Suraj Prakash has now been held to be free from the rigors of that Act. According to Sri Rai the leases which were granted to the petitioners were admittedly made on land which has now been declared as exempt from the restrictions imposed under the 1960 Act and held as such to be possessed by the private respondents here. Placing reliance upon the decisions rendered by the learned Judges of this Court in Ram Bhajan v. Chief Revenue Officer/Prescribed Authority, Mirzapur And Others1, Param Hans v. State of U.P. And Others2 and Moti Lal And Others v. State of U.P. And Others3, Sri Rai submits that once the land ceases to be surplus under the provisions of the 1960 Act, the leases made in favour of the petitioners would no longer survive. According to Sri no right inheres in the petitioners to assail the orders passed in favour of the respondents.