These writ petitions are being disposed of by one and common judgment as all are arising out of one and common judg ment passed by the appellate Authority under Section 13 of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, by which the appellate Authority has up held the order passed by the prescribed Authority.

2. Prescribed Authority vide judgment and orders dated 30th September, 1978 declared the land in dispute held by the petitioner as surplus land in the ceiling pro ceedings drawn against the original tenure holder Laxmi lal/respondent no. 4 (since deceased), who is represented by his le gal heirs and a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to respond ent no. 4 - the tenure holder late Sri Laxmi lal represented by his legal heirs and proceedings were taken up and determined the surplus and ceiling area of respond ent no. 4 - the tenure holder. The tenure holder- late Laxmi lal accepted the judg ment of the prescribed Authority. The pe titioners did not file any appeal, therefore, after expiry of the limitation period land vested in the State Government under Section 14 of the U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

3. The petitioners are claiming their independent rights over the land alleged to be held by them under Section 11 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Author ity on the direction of the High Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority entertained their ob jections and disposed of the objections holding that the petitioners had not per fected their rights on the date of vesting as the claim of right was on the basis of adverse possession.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judg ment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioners preferred appeals. All the appeals have been dismissed by the appellate Authority by upholding the view of the Prescribed Authority.

5. In all the aforesaid three writ peti tions, leading argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Alok Singh, learned Senior Advocate, as sisted by Sri Alok Mehra. Sri Alok Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioners have perfected their rights as they were in possession from much before 1375 Fasli and had perfected their rights on the date of vesting when the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enforced in the area, com mencement of which was 1-7-1969 and they became Asami and they acquired right under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on revesting un der the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was further con tended that since after the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act, the petitioners were not dispos sessed within three years, therefore, the petitioners had perfected their rights im mediately after the expiry of three years from the date of vesting and became Asami under Section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

6. Another limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Alok Singh, learned Senior Advocate is that the petitioners perfected their right immediately after the expiry of two years of limitation for ejectment of a trespasser, which at the relevant time was only of two years. He relied upon the Khasra Entry of 1375 Fasli and claimed that they became hereditary tenant, accrued to them under Section 180 (2) of U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, in 1376 Fasli as the possession was from earlier to 1375 Fasli.

7. Both the limbs of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner rest on the possession of the petitioners. Records have been summoned by this Court from the Additional District Magis trate (Ceiling), Nainital and from records, it reveals that the petitioners; namely Swaran Singh & Fakir Singh were re corded in possession over Khasra for the year, 1375 Fasli and 137

Click Here to Read the rest of this document