Authorities must substantiate claims of ostensible land holdings with cogent evidence; reliance on mere allegations or uncorroborated statements is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Richa Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Shri Rajeev Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing order dated 28.12.1998 passed by opposite party no.2 in Appeal No. 335/93-94 and order dated 21.4.1994 passed by opposite party no.3, as contained in Annexure nos.1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition, with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the opposite party nos.2 and 3 not to club the land of the petitioners with other tenure holder whereby they may also be directed to exclude the same in accordance with law.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders of the land in question. The petitioner no.1 is the tenure holder of land comprising plots bearing Khata No.164 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition), the petitioner no.2 is tenure holder of 02 plots (Annexure no.4 to the writ petition), petitioner no.3 is tenure holder of 01 plot (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition), petitioner no.4 is tenure holder of 06 plots (Annexure no.6 to the writ petition) and petitioner no.5 is tenure holder of 01 plot (Annexure no.7 to the writ petition).

The opposite party no.4 was issued notice u/s 10(2) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 and subsequently the land of the petitioners was clubbed with him and they were issued notice under Rule 8 of the Rules. The opposite party no.4 filed his objection dated 25.01.1993 stating that he had no concerned with the petitioners' land and their chaks were created separately during consolidation proceedings.

The petitioners also filed their objection before Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Kheri stating that they are having cultivatory possession over the lands in their ownership and they have no other agricultural land in all over State of U.P. It was also stated that their lands are situated in different villagers and cannot be in any manner treated and clubbed with the land of opposite party no.4 and their chaks were created in year 1992 during consolidation proceedings.

The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Kheri vide his impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.1994 declared 33.913 hectare irrigated land as surplus of the opposite party no.5 by clubbing the land of the petitioners although it has been admitted in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.1994 that the land is recorded in the name of the petitioners in revenue record.

Being aggrieved, the petitioners and the opposite party no.4 filed two separate appeals which have been dismissed by the opposite party no.2 vide judgment and order dated 28.12.198. However, while dismissing the appeals the opposite party no.2 has himself directed the opposite party no.3 to verify the revenue record at his level and if the land four plots which are recorded in Khata No.1615 in Khatauni 1399-1404 Fasli as Navin Parti are found to be Khalihan land of Gaon Sabha then there is no justification to declare the same as surplus land and the opposite party no.3 may modify his impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.1994 at his level.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 28.12.1998 has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and instead of setting aside