JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Sri Aprit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

2. At the very outset, Sri Agarwal submits that inadvertently he could not carry out the requisite impleadment of petitioners no. 1/6/1 to 1/6/3 in the array of the parties pursuant to the recent order dated 07.04.2023 passed by this Court. He further submits that inadvertently necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition could also not be carried out.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the aforesaid impleadment in the array of the parties during the course of day. He may also carry out necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition pursuant to the same order.

4. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 11.09.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Sambhal and orders dated 23.10.1991 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Moradabad and 13.10.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), First, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in the proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

5. Certain facts and proceedings need to be briefly narrated in this order.

6. The private respondents were tenure holders in respect of various gatas, reference whereof has come in the record of the proceedings, however, in so far as the controversy covered by the present petition is concerned, it is stated that the respondents 4 and 5 were the tenure holders of Gata No.1383 and they transferred the same in favour of the petitioners by executing a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1967.

7. Proceedings under the aforesaid Act of 1960 were initiated against the recorded tenure holders and not against the petitioners and an ex-parte order was passed declaring certain land as surplus on 19.12.1975.

8. It has come on record that pursuant to the sale deed of 1967, names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records in the year 1971 and 1973 as recorded in the order dated 11.09.1979.

9. The aforesaid order dated 09.12.1975 declaring the land as surplus was later on recalled/ set aside and the proceedings were revived. Thereafter, by another order dated 26.07.1976, 8.29 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. An appeal was preferred by the tenure holders against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed on 12.10.1976.

10. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Writ Petition No.95 of 1977 was filed which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Prescribed Authority.

11. Pursuant to the remand order, the Prescribed Authority, by order dated 11.09.1979, declared 8.29 acres of land as surplus. The order was modified on 12.05.1988 and the plot nos.2 and 33 were excluded whereas plot Nos.235, 1791 and 1295 were included in the surplus land.

12. Later on, another modification was made on 23.10.1991 whereby 1.21 acres of land covered by Gata No.1383 was included in the surplus land.

13. The petitioners, being aggrieved by inclusion of their land which was purchased by them in the year 1967, filed objections before the Prescribed Authority on 10.07.1992 referring to the proceedings of consolidation as well as taking a ground that though the petitioners were recorded, no notice as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1961 was issued to them. The said objections were rejected by order dated 23.05.1995, against which they filed appeal, which has also been dismissed on 13.10.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale d