A void sale deed executed during ceiling proceedings does not confer any rights, and thus the petitioners lack standing to challenge the surplus land orders.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

IV. To issue such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case to protect the right and interest of the Petitioners.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that one Smt. Ajeet Kaur, mother of petitioner nos.1 & 2, got executed a sale deed on 15.06.2010 ad measuring 0.676 hectares at District Kheri from the original tenure holder namely Smt. Roopendra Jeet Kaur through her son and general power of attorney holder for a sale consideration of Rs.16,08,000/-. The power of attorney holder of Smt. Roopendra Jeet Kaur had represented to be the absolute land ad-measuring 4.723 hectares of Gata/Khasra No.54 situated at Tehsil Palia, District Kheri. Based upon the said, the case of the petitioners is that mother of petitioner nos.1 & 2 had purchased part of the said property ad-measuring 0.676 hectares after paying the sale consideration and through a registered instrument. It is also the case of the petitioners that they had done due diligence in the revenue records prior to purchasing the said property. What further emerges from the facts are that in respect of the land purchased by the petitioners by virtue of a sale deed, proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rural Ceiling Act’) by issuance of a notice to the original tenure holder on 09.09.2002. After considering the reply of the original tenure holder, who were five in number, the prescribed authority proceeded to pass an order on 26.11.2007 declaring the land as surplus in respect of four of the noticee and accepted the contention of fifth noticee. The said four noticees included the persons from whom the petitioners got a sale deed executed. The four noticees preferred an appeal against the order of the prescribed authority, however, the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2008. Aggrieved against the said two orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority, the original tenure holders approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.101 of 2008 (Ceiling) subsequently renumbered as Writ C No.3000101 of 2008. In the said writ petition, an interim order came to be passed by this Court to the following effect:

“Notices on behalf of opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, the implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 30.07.2008 as well as dated 26.11.2007 passed by opposite parties no. 2 and 3 as contained in Annexure nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition shall remain stayed.”

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, as detailed earlier, the mother of the petitioners purchased the part of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed in their favour on 15.06.2010.

4. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance