Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh, J.—These are large number of writ petitions in which several points are there but more or less they are common and therefore, for convenience, as requested by both sides all are being taken together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Facts are not in much issue except formal and usual denial without any supportive material and thus the Court feels that by making cases in bunch covered by a particular point, all may be decided in one go.

3. All the writ petitioners challenges the interference by the District Administration in their rights to continue in peaceful possession on the pretext of the land having declared as surplus under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

4. We are to first notice the facts which are stated in all the petitions mainly to the same effect in different language, which can be summarised as under—

5. Petitioners are owner and in possession of the land in dispute. Although the land was declared as surplus but at no point of time actual physical possession was taken by the competent authority. In some of the cases proceedings/notice is said to have been given against the dead person and in some of the