JUDGMENT 1. - Should we put ceiling over stay orders in land ceiling law litigation or frustrate and defeat the socio-economic progressive law by chain of stay orders, is the pivot of debate in this stay petition. 2. This is a second stay petition by the petitioner Earlier stay petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Mr. Pareek has prayed that in view of the fact that earlier status quo was ordered to be maintained the same order should be passed now. Mr. Pareek pointed out inconsistency in the reply of the respondents filed now. 3. Mr. Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the answering respondents are poor persons and weaker section of the society and the land was allotted to them because they were landless persons. It was also pointed out that the possession has been given to them after the vacation of the stay order and they have cultivated the crop of Juwar. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstance of the case, it would he inexpedient to grant any stay order. The land in dispute was declared as surplus land under calling law and allotted to the respondents who were found to be landless perso in village. They belong to weaker section of the society and the proceedings in the present case are pending in one form or the other. In my considered opinion these is no ground for passing any stay order. The grant of indiscriminate and frequent stay orders against the allotment of land or grant of possession to the landless persons and persons of weaker section on account of rent of surplus land tinder the ceiling laws in respect of the agricultural only results in providing a protective umbrella to the litigants who have got vested interest in holding possession of the surplus land in spite of the red policy of land ceiling laws of the State legislature. This results perpetuating injustice and denial of social justice to the landless and weaker in if the society including the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and ward classes. 5. This results perpetuating injustice and denial of social justice to the landless and weaker in if the society including the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and ward classes. 5. The net result of the grant of stay order in such cases is that under the garb of stay order in such cases, the litigants continue their possession which, prima facie, become unlawful, once the land is declared over and above ceiling limit and surplus land which should be allotted to the landless persons. 6. The ceiling law are socioeconomic progressive laws meant for emancipation of the landless and weaker section but their implementation in the shape of land reforms for providing land to landless persons is seriously jeopardised and hampered by grant of stay orders by one court after the other court and the process continues for decades together. 7. It is my considered opinion that in cases of challenge to the orders passed under ceiling law, the stay should not be granted under the laws. unless there are extraordinary exceptional reasons. In cases, where the allotment have been made invariably, the stay should be rejected and landless allottees should he allowed to take possession of the land and enjoy the fruits of the progressive legislation after waiting for its implementation for decades together. 8. In the above view, the principle of social justice want that the stay orders should be refused and consequently the stay application is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******