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 dispute. They only came to know of it when in 1990 some official of respondent No. 1 tried to disposes the petitioners from the land in dispute. It is further stated that on 25-4-90 some order was passed by the respondents and Parwana-amal-daramad was issued. It is further stated that prior to 17-9-90 the petitioners were not aware of the order dated 25-4-90 passed by respondent No. 2 Grievance of the petitioners is that as the petitioners were allottees in possession of the property on the basis of a valid allot ment order and a deed was executed in their favour by the State, respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to pass such order without giving any notice to the petitioners as the order amounts to cancellation of the lease granted to the petitioners in respect of the land in question. The petitioners have at tacked the aforesaid order on number of grounds, but the main ground of attack is that the petitioners should have been given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.

3. A Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of private respondent Mohd. Shafi. He has denied all the allegations con tained in the writ petition on the ground that no doubt initially certain land was declared as surplus land but an appeal was filed by the tenure- holders before the appel late authority. That appeal was dismissed. The tenure-holder aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority filed writ petition No. 4820 of 1983. That writ petition was allowed in part on 9-10-84 and the matter was sent back to the appellate authority to re-determine the surplus land if any with the tenure-holder in accordance with law in the light of the observation contained in the body of the judgment and the tenure holder was given liberty to give a choice as permissible under the law. It is stated that when the matter went back before the appellate authority, the appellate authority reduced the surplus land by

1. 77 acres in village Manawala. Then an application under Sec tion 12-A of the Act was moved by respon dent No. 3 on 23-6-89 to the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) praying that instead of plot No. 253 of village Naglia Narain the petitioner should be given plot Nos. 255 M and 200 M (1. 77 acre) of village Naglia Narain. The deponent have annexed a cer tified copy of this application as Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that a report was asked from Naeb Tahsildar who recommended that the choice of opposite party No. 3 be accepted. The report was accepted by the impugned order dated 25-4- 90. The contention of the respondents is that since it was not a proceeding for cancel lation of the lease granted to the petitioners as provided under Section 27 (4) of the Act, therefore, there is no question of any oppor tunity of hearing for the petitioners and they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document