IMPORTANT POINT
Re-determination of the ceiling area is permissible if any land has come to be held by a tenure holder pursuant to a decree or order of any Court.

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-These appeals arise out of a common Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. By the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench disposed of 10 Writ Petitions filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act"). The matter relates to the fixation of ceiling under the provisions of the Ceiling Act.

2. Predecessors-in-interest of Yashvir Singh (Respondent No.3), Satvir Singh (Respondent No.4) and Jagdishpal Singh (Respondent No.5) in Civil Appeal Nos. 424-429 of 1997 had executed a lease in 1936 in favour of Delhi Cloth & General Mills (hereinafter referred to as "D.C.M."). The lease was for a period of 25 years in respect of 375 bighas of land. When U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Z.A.Act") came into force, a compensation statement was prepared under Chapter IXA of Z.A. Act and DCM was held to be `Adhiwasi of this land. The original land owners, namely, predecessors-in-interest of R3, R4 and R5 filed objection to this and claimed `Bhumidari right over the entire land. Their plea was initially accepted but the Compensation Officer vide his order dated 3.1.1957 allowed the appeal filed by DCM and against that appellate Order, the land owners went in appeal before the Board of Revenue, but their claim was rejected.

3. After the commencement of the Ceiling Act, the land covered by the lease deed was sought to be declared as surplus land in the hands of DCM. The landowners claimed Bhumidari right over the said land. Their claim was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. They went in appeal and the Appellate Authority held that DCM had only Asami right. These orders were challenged before the High Court in Writ petitions and the matter was remitted to the lower Appellate Court. The writ petitions were again filed against the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court and the matter was decided by the High Court on 28.11.1969. Against that Judgment, special appeals were filed and it was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the predecessors-in-interest of respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 had got Bhumidari right over 142 Bighas out of total land which was given on lease to DCM. Their claim regarding the rest of the land was rejected. The land owners thereafter filed Special Leave Petition before this Court and this Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh decision. On 23.9.1987, the matter was decided afresh holding that the predecessors-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 had Bhumidari right over 142-172 1/2 Bighas of land and for the rest of the land the DCM was declared to have Adhiwasi and Sirdar rights. Against that decision, the matter was again taken up in appeal before this Court by Special leave and all the parties to that proceedings ultimately accepted the position that the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 herein who are the successors-in-interest of the original land owners are entitled to have rights over 72.50 bighas of disputed land. An extent of 8-7-0 bighas of land was excluded and 64 bighas of land was directed to be put in possession of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and Prescribed Authority was directed to determine the surplus land of these respondents. The operative portion of the Judgment of this Court is as follows:-

"The assertion of the State of Uttar Pradesh that most of the lands in dispute have been taken over by the State as ceiling surplus land is not disputed. On account of the fact that ceiling surplus had been determined in the hands of the respondent-company and our present order holding that the appellants have interest in regard to about 64 bighas of land out of the land in dispute, a fresh determination of the surplus has to be done. The appellant should be entitled to be put into possession of the lands out of 64 bighas which would be within the ceiling limit. We, therefore,