COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 2506/2007 Bhagwinder Singh & Other …….Petitioners Versus Prescribed Authority/Upper District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar & Other …….Respondents Sri S.K. Mandal, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. 18th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to given notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Petitioners have further prayed that directions may be issued to the Prescribed Authority to decide the objections dated 25.5.2007. 2. Petitioners claim to be the bhumidhar of the land in dispute and stated that their father had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, which was decreed in his favour on 9.3.1970. Petitioners have further asserted that the Prescribed Authority has declared their land surplus including the land of one Sri Gyan Singh showing with the petitioners without giving any notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated the Ceiling Case No. 2/1961-62, State v. Gyan Singh has already been decided vide order dated 26.3.1962 and as such there is no question of expediting the disposal of the said case. It has further been stated that the petitioners have not filed any objection before the Prescribed Authority. 5. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the ceiling proceedings stand concluded vide order dated 23.6.1962 and the land in dispute was declared surplus land, therefore, suit under Section 229- B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was not maintainable and decree passed in the said suit had no force in the eye of law. Therefore, declaration of the petitioners as bhumidhar is of no consequence. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 18.8.2008 Prabodh