S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority disposing of the four appeals filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the U. P. Imposition of Celling on Land Holdings Act directed against the orders passed by the prescribed authority in Case No. 45 being orders dated 19. 7. 93. 17. 2. 95, 28. 2. 95, 24. 3. 95 and 31. 3. 95 as welt as the orders passed by the prescribed authority in Case No. 48/18 being orders dated 30. 8. 93. 7. 3. 95. 20. 3. 95 and 29. 4. 95, he has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders declaring an area of 69. 99 acres of agricultural holdings of Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi to be surplus.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.

( 3 ) THE parties have exchanged their affidavits and their learned counsel have requested that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage.

( 4 ) THE relevant facts as they emerge from the materials placed on record lie in a narrow compass. In the proceedings under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document