The main legal point established is the invalidity of lease deeds executed to subvert the objectives of the Land Ceiling Act, leading to the prompt conclusion of the proceedings.

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

At the outset, I would like to mention that this writ petition has been filed putting the title under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while in fact it must be treated as if filed under Article 227 of the Constitution because it challenges the judicial order of the Divisional Commissioner, Nainital, and the High Court has the power of superintending over all course. The Divisional Commissioner while hearing the appeal against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority sits as a judicial authority, and not in his administrative capacity. Needless to say that Article 226 vests the power in the High Court to issue certain writs, which is an extraordinary constitutional remedy and to set aside the order of Divisional Commissioner while sitting in the judicial capacity, there is no need to invoke the extraordinary constitutional remedy as pondered under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherefor the powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution do have their propriety and relevance and the applicability. Now, I come to the aspects of the matter.

2. The facts of the present case is a glaring illustration as to how the petitioner along with private respondents has succeeded to frustrate the object of the legislature in enacting the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act). The law was enacted in the interest of community to ensure the increased agricultural production and to provide land to the landless agricultural labourers and for other public purposes to subserve the common good. But by abusing the process of law in the hierarchy of the courts, how a tenure-holder, who is presently the petitioner and his associates including their predecessors in-interest could succeed to prolong the litigation for nearly half a century and still their nefarious designs have not exhausted and the present writ petition is further an attempt in that direction. It may be demonstrated exploring the history of all these litigations as below. But even before proceeding ahead, perhaps it would be expedient to make the things more clear by way of producing the pedigree of petitioner’s ancestors, as provided to this Court and a portion of the same is available on the record also.

Rai Bahadur Hari Singh
Rai Bahadur Sher Singh		Baba Kharag Singh (Died in 1963)
		Prithvipal Singh (Died in 1947)
Sundar Singh (born on 15.5.1891) (died on 1.11.1986)		Jagat Singh	Manjeet Singh	Jagjeet Singh
		(All died and none had left any legal heir)
Joginder Singh (born on 18.2.1919) (Alive)	S. Rajinder Singh (born on 13.5.1921) (died in 2012)	Bhagtender Singh (born on 15.9.1925) (Petitioner) (Alive)	Kanwerinder Singh (born on 15.4.1927) (died in 2015)	Jasinder Singh (born on 12.3.1943) (Alive)

3. During the course of arguments, it was revealed that as a reward of participation in the first world war, which probably happened in the late second decade of the 20th century, a vast agricultural land was given to the predecessors of the petitioner and the area of such land covered several hundreds of bighas (probably 644.16264 bighas) in the village Deohari, Tarai Bhawar area of Tehsil Bajpur and the said land was being used by the predecessors of the petitioner Bhagtender Singh, namely, Mr. Sundar Singh and even before by others, to their every benefit and use, but possession of this excess land was made vulnerable by the ceiling enactment, wherefor the discussions in the Legislative Assembly began in 1960 and the Act came into operation as general in 1961 giving liberty to the State Government to make it applicable specifically in area to area by way of publication of separate notification in the official gazette.

4.