JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent nos.1 to 2 and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for Varanasi Development Authority.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.03.1998 as well as 20.04.2022 passed by respondent No.2 as Annexure Nos.4 &5 in the aforesaid writ petition.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to abate the proceeding of Case No.323/1613/2166/80-81 (State vs. Musamat, wife of Bachchan Singh) Village Susuwahi, Pargana Dehat Ammanat, District Varanasi under Section 3 (2) (A) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No.15 of 1999).

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the revenue record in name of the land holder situated in Village Susuwahi, Pargana Dehat Ammanat, District Varanasi."

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been reported by the office to be 142 days beyond the usual period of 90 days of passing of the impugned order.

4. The facts of the case in short are that father of petitioner nos.1 to 4 and grand-father of petitioner nos.5-12 Bachchan died before 17.02.1976. For declaring the land of original owner namely Bachchan to be surplus, the Collector/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi instituted a case under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, “Ceiling Act" and therefore, mother of the petitioner nos.1 to 4 filed ceiling return under Section 6 (1) of the Ceiling Act. The case was registered as Case No.323/1613/2166/80-81 (State vs. Musamat Kewali, Village Susuwahi, Pargana Dehat Ammanat, District Varanasi) and a notice under Section 8 (3) of the Ceiling Act was served upon the original owner on 10.3.1981. She did not submit any objection to the notice within 30 days and as such, it was presumed that she did not have any objection to the said notice. Finally, the Competent Authority declared the land owned by the original owner to the extent of 7097.49 square meters to be surplus on 03.6.1981 and published a draft statement under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act and a notification in the official gazette as per the requirement of Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act. Thereafter, describing the details of surplus land in letter dated 03.6.1981 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the Collector was directed to carry out the proceeding of taking possession over the land in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that father/grand father of petitioners died before 17.02.1976. The mother of the petitioner nos.1 to 4 filed ceiling return under Section 6 (1) of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners are in actual possession over the land in question. Neither the respondents have taken possession of the said land from the original owner nor she had given possession to the respondents. No third party interest has been created by the respondents in the aforesaid land till date. The State Government issued a Government order on 02.4.1994 directing to all competent authorities of the State of U.P. to stop further proceedings in respect of agricultural land, which is declared as ceiling land under Section 8 (4) and notice issued under Section 10 (5) but no proceeding under Section 10 (6) for taking possession has been initiated. In pursuance of the said Government order, the Competent Authority has not completed proceeding under Section 10 (6) in respect of all agricultural land of the petitioners till 18.3.1999 and during the pendency of proceeding under Section 10 (6), the Act No.33 of 1976 has been repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, Repeal Act, with effect from 18.3.1999 and hence, all the proceedings of this case against the ori