IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 7134 of 2001 State of U.P. ………………..…Petitioner. Versus Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Kumaon and others. ……………..Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the petitioner. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, & Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 20.8.2008 Hon’ble Mr. P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order-dated 17.2.1988 passed by the respondent no. 1 contained in Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued on 7.11.1975 against one Ganga Singh Churamani, in whch he was shown to have been holding land measuring an area 3542.10 Bigha and the surplus land was proposed against him measuring an area 3332.7 Bigha. Prescribed Authority determined the surplus land of the original tenure holder, who was recorded tenure holder of land and confirmed the notice issued against him vide its judgment and order dated 30.6.1976 and declared surplus land measuring an area 3332.7 Bigha. Against the said order, Shri Ganga Singh Churamani filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 1258 of 1976 before the District Judge, Nainital and the District Judge, Nainital dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, being aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Additional District Judge as well as District Judge, Ganga Singh Churamani filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3773/1977 G.S. Churamani Vs. State of U.P. and others before the Allahabad High Court. High Court of Allahabad vide order 2 dated 23.11.1979 allowing the appeal of Ganga Singh Churamani remanded the same to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same afresh after giving him an opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence on record. Respondents no. 2 to 9 moved an application to be impleaded as party in the said proceeding and were impleaded as party accordingly. Respondent no. 2 to 9 filed objection before the Prescribed Authority claiming that Ganga Singh Churamani executed sub-lease to them and on the basis of sub-lease the said respondents are in possession. Petitioner has further alleged that respondent no. 2 to 9 are not recorded tenure holders of the land in question and in fact, they have no concern at all and have no right, title or interest in the said properties. The prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 24.6.1987 declared surplus land of Ganga Singh Churamani measuring 3446.7 Bigha and dismissed the objection filed by the respondent no. 2 to 9. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, respondent no. 2 to 6 filed Ceiling Appeal No. 12/11-1986-87 Rama Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others before respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 7 to 9 also filed appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 11/1-86-87 Indira Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others against the judgment and order dated 24.6.1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority. By a common judgment, respondent no. 1 on 17.2.1988 modified the judgment and order dated 24.6.1987 passed by Prescribed Authority and after giving the land to the respondent no. 2 to 9 4. Perused the judgment passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Kumaon. After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the relevant case laws as well evidence adduced by both the parties, the court below has come to the conclusion that the appellants / respondents had themselves acquired rights of Maursi Kashtkar on their respective disputed lands before 16.10.1970 3 under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. From 16.10.1970, they had become Sirdar and after some time, they became Bhumidhar of the disputed land and since the appellants / respondents had themselves become the Sirdar of the land in dispute, therefore, their land cannot be declared to be surplus under the provisions of Land Ceiling. 5. After perusing the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below is perfectly justified and the same requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is confirmed. 6. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 20.8.2008 Rathour