IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 4392 of 2001 (M/S) (Old CMWP No. 11533 of 1993) Parmahendra, son of Deep Chand and five others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital and others. … Respondents. Sri Gopal Krishan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent nos. 1-3. None is present for the private respondents. Date September 16, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admit the writ petition. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 4.3.1993 passed by the respondent no. 2 and judgment and order dated 22.9.1992 passed by the respondent no.3 vide annexures no. 12 and 11 to this writ petition so far as the same relate to the petitioners. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land purchased by them from respondent no.6. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. 2 (iv) To award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are bona fide purchasers of various plots and they purchased different plots on different dates from the vendee Amarnath Jetly (deceased) as detailed in paragraph no.1 of the writ petition. The plots are situated in village Madaiya Buxi, Tehsil Bazpur, district Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). Ceiling proceedings against the respondent no.6 were initiated and the respondent no. 6 was permitted to retain certain plots situated in village Madaiya Buxi by the respondent no. 3 by judgment and order dated 30-8-1978. The said proceedings are said to have attained finality. After the ceiling proceedings were over, the respondent no. 6 sold certain plots in favour of the petitioners. However, ceiling proceedings against Satyendra Sharma and Gajendra Kumar, both sons of Shiv Narain Sharma continued and the case against them was finally decided by respondent no. 3 vide his judgment and order dated 20-6-1992. A true copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. In the said judgment, the respondent no. 3 declared the land belonging to the petitioners as surplus. As soon as the petitioners came to know about it, they filed objections under Section 11(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act ( for short the Act). The objections filed by the petitioners were decided by the Prescribed Authority by common order dated 22-9-1992 passed in Ceiling Case No. 51/12 of 1991-92, State Vs. Gajendra Kumar and others. Different persons including the petitioners preferred separate appeals before the respondent no.2- Commissioner, Kumaun Division Nainital against the judgment and order dated 22- 3 9-1992, which was decided by a common judgment and order dated 4-3-1993 and the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioners is that they purchased the land from Amarnath Jetly (deceased). The said Amarnath Jetly has one half share in the land in dispute and the remaining half share belonged to Shiv Narain Sharma, who had also died and he was substituted by his legal heirs (two sons_ Satyendera Kumar and Gajendra Kumar, where are having 1/4th share each in the disputed plots. The controversy arose when the legal heirs of deceased Shiv Narain Sharma, namely Satyendra Kumar and Gajendra Kujmar gave their choice of plot nos. 16, 18 and 19 to the extent of their share. The petitioners filed objects that they purchased the land from deceased Amarnath Jetly. There is no dispute about the shares of the parties and this fact is not disputed that deceased Amarnath Jetly had retained plot nos. 16, 18 and 19 in his share along with other plot numbers. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objections of the petitioners on the ground that Amarnath Jetly (deceased) was a co-tenure holder of half share and he ignored the sale-deeds executed by Amarnath Jetly in favour of the petitioners. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, to my mind, the finding of the Prescribed Authority is perverse, because the ceiling proceeding was initiated against the legal heirs of Shiv Narain Sharma and sons of late Shiv Narain Sharma were having in all half share in the land and Satyendra Kumar and Gajendra Kumar did not execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. These plots were not given in choice by Amarnath Jetly (deceased). The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4-3-1993 passed by 4 respondent no.2. The Prescribed Authority has committed a manifest error of law by ignoring the sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioners and that has no concern with the land of tenure holder Satyendra Kumar and Gajendra Kumar. The order passed by the two courts below cannot be sustained. The writ petition is liable to be partly allowed. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the two courts below are set aside. The Prescribed Authority concerned is directed to demarcate the land of Satyendra Kumar and Gajendra Kumar, sons of Shiv Narain Sharma (deceased) and that of the petitioners under Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act expeditiously as far as possible. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6