The main legal point established is that the allotment of land must be done following the prescribed procedure, and the court has the authority to direct the respondent to decide stay applications within a specified time frame.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Sri P.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. This writ petition has been filed seeking amongst other the following relief

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2/District Magistrate to decide the stay application of maintaining status quo till the proceeding under section 198(4) is adjudicated"

2. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that certain land belonging to the Gaon Sabha was settled in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 14. This allotment was made surreptitiously and without following the procedure prescribed. In the process the land was allotted to the persons who were not eligible for such allotment. Even the approval of the resolution was granted surreptitiously.

3. Proceedings were therefore initiated for cancellation of the lease under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The allottees sold the land allotted to them to builders who started raising constructions thereon. In these proceedings despite orders being passed the record pertaining to the allotment in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 was not produced.

4. It has further been alleged that during the pendency of these proceedings repeated applications were filed for interim protection. On the one hand the record of the allotment proceedings was not being produced on one pretext or other and on the other hand no orders are being passed on the repeated applications for interim relief. All the applications filed were merely being directed to be kept on record and therefore this petition for the relief noted herein above.

5. When this matter initially came before the Court on 21.1.2015 learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. The order passed on 22.1.2015 is quoted below

"Learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instruction in the matter because prima facie it appears that land which has been allotted in favour of villagers, has been sold out to builders and constructions are being raised thereon.

In case, the land was allotted it would necessarily be conferring nontransferable rights upon the allottees and under such circumstances there appears no justification for his transfer of such land.

Learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha may also obtain instructions in the matter.

Put up as fresh on 3rd February, 2015."

6. When this matter was heard learned Standing Counsel produced a copy of the instructions received by him. This copy is taken on record.

7. Perusal of this instructions reveal that it has been stated that an earlier petition for the same relief was filed before the instant writ petition which is a second writ petition and therefore not maintainable. It would be extremely relevant to note that the instructions are totally silent on the question as to whether the allottees had any right to sell the land allotted to them.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to show that in view of section 131-B of the Act, the allottees would become bhumidhar with transferable rights after the expiry of ten years from the date of allotment and that thereafter they would be entitled to sell the same.

9. It is admitted on record that the allotment in favour of the respondents was approved on 30.6.1994. However, the instructions received do not mention the date of the sale deeds executed by the allottees in favour of third parties namely the builders. In the absence of this date the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the benefit of section 131-B of the Act cannot be determined.

10. Confronted with the situation learned Standing Counsel sought further time to seek clarifications in this regard. However, I see no justification to grant any further time specially in view of the fact that the order dated 21.1.2015 in this regard was very categorical and also because this aspect may be considered by the Collector in the pr