Subordinate courts must comply with remand orders from higher authorities, and failure to do so renders subsequent orders unsustainable, especially in matters affecting legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.G. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Shri Dinesh Chandra, learned counsel for the subsequent allottee.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.09.2002 passed by the Commissioner (opposite party no.2) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dated 31.03.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 has been affirmed.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 08.07.1974 a notice under Section 10(2) of UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act was issued in which area held by the petitioner's father and grand-father of ( petitioners no. 9 to 12) was shown 23.056 acres land un-irrigated equivalent to 13.697 acres irrigated land was proposed to be declared surplus and an area 29.400 acres irrigated land was held within the ceiling limits.

The petitioner's father and grand father of the petitioner no. 9 to 12 filed an objection with the allegation that the entire land is unirrigated ancestral land and 5 major sons were in existence on the date of vesting and thus they are the co-tenure holder along-with Gulam Mohammad Khan.

The Prescribed Authority (Opposite Party No. 3) dismissed the objections vide order dated 26.12.1974. Against the said order petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Bahraich ( Rent Appeal No. 32 of 1975) which was allowed and accordingly the order dated 26.12.1974 was set aside vide order dated 05.04.1975.

In a review application filed by OP No.1 the order dated 05.04.1975 was dismissed and the order dated 26.12.1974 was upheld vide order dated 18.09.1980.

The petitioner filed a writ petition 3026/80 in this Hon'ble Court which was allowed vide order dated 12.01.1984 with following direction : " The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Distt. Judge dated 5.4.1975 Annexure Ho. 5) in review application is quashed and is directed to recalculate the land in accordance with laws"

The matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to recalculate the land of the petitioner in the light of order dt. 12.01.1984. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31.03.2001 declared 13.657 acres irrigated land equivalent to 20.485 acres unirrigated land as surplus. Against the order dated 31.03.2001 petitioners filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner, Devi Patan (OP No. 2) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate Court has arbitrarily and illegally passed the judgment and order dated 10.9.2002 upholding the order dated 31.3.2001 passed by the opposite party no. 3 has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without applying its judicial mind at the time of passing the impugned order and without considering the pleas and arguments raised by the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that opposite party no. 3 has committed manifest error of law in not deciding the application for substitution of the legal heirs of late Abdul Wahab Khan and without substituting the sons of late Abdul Wahab and grandsons of Late Gulam Mohamaad Khan passed the impugned order dated 10.9.2002.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26.12.1974 also rejected the plea of mutual partition cum family settlement on the ground that no documentary evidence to the said effect has been led