SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J.

Though this petition was listed for admission but as the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and as the learned coun sel for the parties have agreed; this petition is being disposed of finally.

2. The brief facts are that aggrieved by the order dated 25-4-90 passed by respon dent No. 2, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India. The petitioners contention is that they were landless agricultural Labourer and when the land was declared as surplus land in a proceeding under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act started against Mohd. Shafi & others, the State after taking possession of the surplus land settled the land with the petitioners in accordance with law on a lease. The petitioners on the basis of the lease-deed came in possession and con tinued in possession. It is further contended that in pursuance of the lease-deed the names of the petitioner were recorded in the revenue record and it is admitted in para 7 of the writ petition that some dispute between respondent No. 1 and 3 and the State Government, was going on, but the petitioner were not aware of such disput

Click Here to Read the rest of this document