IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 4545 of 2001 (M/S) (Old CMWP No. 26213 of 1994) State of U.P. through the Collector, Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Commissioner Kumaun Division, Nainital. 2. Chaudhary Lal, S/O Barkat Singh, R/O Village Khanpur Purab, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Nainital. … Respondents. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-petitioner. None is present for the respondent no.2. Date September 11, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.1993 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), whereby the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital has allowed the Ceiling Appeal Nos. 25 of 1992-92, Gurubux Singh and another Vs. State and two others as well as Ceiling Appeal No. 28 of 1992-93, Chaudhary Lal Vs. State and three others, by a common judgment and order and the order dated 27-5-1993 of the Prescribed Authority was modified to the extent that the land purchased by Santosh Singh and Gurubux Singh (respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Ceiling Appeal No. 28 of 1992- 93) be not included in the ceiling proceedings. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that before the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate, Nainital, Ceiling Case No. 51/11 of 1992-93, State Vs. Barkat Singh, was filed by the State and the proceedings were initiated as the land of Khata holder Barkat Singh was affected. In the earlier proceedings, by order dated 31-11-1992, land measuring 2 2.445 Hectares was declared as surplus vacant land. Barkat Singh/Gurubux Singh preferred appeal before the Commissioner Kumaun Division, Nainital. The appeal preferred by Gurubux Singh was decided on 3-8-1992 and the case was remanded with the direction that the concerned parties be served with notice under Section 10(2) and Rule 8 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority after remand of the case decided the matter afresh by his order dated 17- 11-1992 and the land to the tune of 2.445 Hectares was declared as surplus vacant land. Khata holder Gurubux Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was decided on 20-2-1993 and the case was again remanded with the direction that the concerned parties be heard after serving them with notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and the case be decided afresh. Accordingly the Prescribed Authority proceeded with the case and notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the objectors. Ultimately, the Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.5.1993 rejected the objections filed by the objectors including Chaudhary Lal and others and irrigated land measuring 2.445 Hectares was declared as surplus vacant land. Aggrieved by the said order, Ceiling Appeal No. 28 of 1992-93 was filed by Chaudhary Lal against the State and others, while Gurubux Singh and Santosh Singh, sons of Chaudhary Lal filed Ceiling Appeal No. 25 of 1992-93 before the Commissioner Kumaun Division, Nainital. The appellate authority by its order dated 14-10-1993 allowed the appeals directing that the land purchased by Santosh Singh and Gurubux Singh be not included in the ceiling proceedings and modified the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as mentioned earlier. I have heard learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the State-petitioner and perused the record. 3 At the outset, it may be mentioned that the State of U.P. had preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26212 of 1994 against the common order passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 25 of 1992-93 and Ceiling Appeal No. 28 of 1992-93 before the Allahabad High Court. After transfer of the case, the matter was registered as Writ Petition (M/S) No. 307 of 2001, State Vs. Commissioner Kumaun Division and two others. The said writ petition was dismissed on merits by order dated 4-4-2006. The facts of the case at hand are identical to the facts of the Writ Petition No. 307 of 2001 (M/S), State of U.P. Vs. Commissioner Kumaun Division, Nainital and two others. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State-petitioner has fairly conceded to this fact. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to my mind, there is no need to record the same finding again. As such, the present writ petition has to be dismissed on merits in terms of the order dated 4-4-2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 307 of 2001 (M/S), State of U.P. Vs. Commissioner Kumaun Division, Nainital and two others. The writ petition is dismissed on merits in terms of the order dated 4-4-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 307 of 2001 (M/S), State of U.P. Vs. Commissioner Kumaun Division, Nainital and two others. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6