The appellate order allowing claims of adverse possession was quashed due to lack of evidence and presumption of collusion with the tenure holder.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - State of U.P. has sought quashing of an order dated 23.5.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow allowing Appeal No. 287/291/92-93 under Section 13 (1) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a notice dated 19.11.1974 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') was issued to Sri. Murlidhar Hakim, the recorded tenure holder of the land in question. He did not submit any reply to the notice and on 16.1.1975, the Prescribed Authority Ceiling (Second) Nighasan passed an order declaring land bearing Gata No. 197 Ga having an area of 7.78 acres, Gata No. 200 Kh having an area of 8.72 acres, Gata No. 202 M having an area of 7.812 acres, Gata No. 203 having an area of 1.00 acres and Gata No. 207 Sa having an area of 3.62 acres, total 28.93 acres, situated in village Mahangapur, Pargana Palia, Tahsil Nighasan, District Kheri to be the surplus land of Sri. Murlidhar Hakim.

3. On 28.6.1978, Anokh Singh, Pyara Singh and Hazara Singh, the predecessors in interest of the private respondents, filed an application for their impleadment and for redetermination of the ceiling and surplus area of Murlidhar Hakim, stating that the applicant No. 1 Anokh Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No. 207 Kh/3.62 acres, Pyara Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No. 197 Ga/7.78 and 200 Kh/8.75 acres and Hazara Singh was the Seerdar/Bhumidhar of land bearing Gata No. 202/25.85 acres and that they had acquired the Seeradari rights by adverse possession much before the enforcement of the amended Ceiling Act. They had filed suits under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act') and their rights were acknowledged vide orders dated 1.8.1975, 20.12.1973 and 12.1.1977 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The land in their possession had wrongly been declared as surplus land of Murlidhar Hakim. It was stated in the application that the applicants came to know about the order dated 16.1.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority on 17.4.1978, when they obtained a copy of the extract of Khatauni.

4. The applicants were impleaded and they were given an opportunity to present their case. They filed copies of the relevant extract of Khatauni for the year 1380 to 1382 Fasli, copies of plaint filed in the three suits No. 187, 383/355 and 37 filed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and copies of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow in appeals and they got their statements recorded.

5. The State filed objections against the application and got the statement of Lekhpal recorded.

6. The Prescribed Authority had rejected the claim of the predecessors of the private respondents by means of an order dated 30.4.1988. Appeals were filed against the aforesaid order, which were allowed by a composite order dated 31.1.1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for being decided afresh.

7. The objectors had relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ziley Singh v. State, 1978 All LJ 772.

8. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objections by means of an order dated 24.2.1993 holding that in Ziley Singh (Supra), the land in question was recorded in the name of the claimant on the reference date whereas in the present case, the claimants' name was not recorded as the tenure holders of the land in question on the date of reference or on the date of declaration. The suits filed by them under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were dismissed by means of orders dated 20.4.1972, 31.12.1973 a