Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and learned Standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the petitioners over the property in question and also restrain them not to demolish the construction of the petitioners standing over the land and further it has been prayed that the parties be directed to maintain status quo.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the owners of the plot No. 148/1 area 1.890 acres; plot No. 150/1 area 2.920 acres and plot No. 149/1 area 13 1/4 decimal situate at Samneghat Nagwan, Varanasi. A proceeding under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was initiated against the petitioners declaring the area of the aforesaid plots as surplus land.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceeding initiated on 18.12.1981 was ex parte in nature and without issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to them. Against the order dated 18.12.1981 Sri Deo Nath Singh, father of the petitioner No. 7 to 10 and their predecessor filed Ceiling Appeal No. 123 of 1998 alongwith application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed by the District Judge, Varanasi vide judgement and order dated 14.12.2000 and the proceedings initiated as per the order dated 18.12.1981 were set aside.

A Writ Petition No. 14093 of 2002 (State of U.P. through Collector v. Deo Nath and others) was filed filed before this Court challenging the judgement and order passed by the District Judge, Varanasi dated 14.12.2000. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Hon’ble Court passed an order dated 11.4.2002 whereby the writ petition was admitted and notices were issued on stay application by staying operation of the order dated 14.12.2000 and directing the parties to maintain status quo as on date with regard to the possession and nature of land. On the land in dispute, the petitioners have raised constructions in the shape of two houses and 13 shops. The area is covered by boundary wall and petitioners are in possession over the plot in question from the time of their ancestors for more than 60 years.

5. In spite of the order passed by this Court directing to maintain status quo, the Varanasi Development Authority tried to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question and threatened to demolish the petitioners’ constructions and get the premises vacated.

6. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners approached Collector Varanasi and filed a representation to the Secretary Nagar Vikas U.P. Shashan, Lucknow bringing therein the entire facts and circumstances of the case and requested that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition challenging the order passed in the Ceiling Appeal No. 123 of 1998. When no action was taken by the respondents on the application of the petitioners then the present writ petition was filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Writ Petition No. 14093 of 2002 (State of U.P. through Collector v. Deo Nath and others) was dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 20.12.2006 and has placed the copy of the aforesaid judgement before this Court. The relevant portion of the judgement dated 20.12.2006 is being quoted herein below :

“We may first deal with the SECOND BUNCH of the writ petition. In the said bunch of petitions the appeals were pending on the date of coming of the Repeal Act and it is enforcement in the State of U.P., i.e. 18.3.1999. Under the Repeal Act itself it is provided in Section 4 thereof that all such proceedings pending on the date of coming of the Repeal Act would stand abated. The order of the District Judge in the second bunch of the writ petitions whereby either the pr