JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioners for quashing the order dated 2.6.1999 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 8/2/2/9 of 1996-97 (Ram Lal v. State of U.P. and others). 2. Petitioners before this Court are allottees of surplus land declared by authorities below of respondent No. 2. 3. It appears that proceedings under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated against Ram Lal, respondent No. 2. Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 31.12.1994 declared 1.640 hectares of land as surplus and respondent No. 2 was directed to submit his choice of plots to be declared as surplus but no choice was given by the respondent No. 2 and prescribed authority vide its order dated 31.1.1995 declared Plot No. 174 Minjumla measuring 1.640 hectares of respondent No. 2 as surplus. Accordingly parwana of Amaldaramad was issued and necessary entries were made in revenue records. Possession over the surplus land was taken by respondent No. 3 on 3.2.1995 and on 11.2.1995 allotment of surplus land was duly made in favour of petitioners on the basis of patta. Petitioners submit that possession of land was given in favour of petitioners. 4. It appears that respondent No. 2 aggrieved by order dated 31.12.1994, filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 filed original sale deed dated 22.10.1983 executed by Sri Shiv Govind Singh in favour of Ashok Kumar S/o Lal Bahadur and it was stated that he could not file a copy of sale deed before prescribed authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding recorded by prescribed authority but allowed the appeal by orders dated 28.10.1995 and 31.10.1994 and set aside the order and remanded the matter to trial Court with a direction to decide in the light of evidence whether respondent No. 2 was real owner of land mentioned in sale deed or whether respondent No. 2 was entitled to get any benefit of sale deed. Prescribed authority in compliance of order dated 28.10.1995 provided opportunity of producing evidence and decided the matter vide its judgment and order dated 24.1.1997 and confirmed the earlier order dated 31.12.1994. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by aforesaid order filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. Prescribed authority in compliance of order dated 28.10.1995 provided opportunity of producing evidence and decided the matter vide its judgment and order dated 24.1.1997 and confirmed the earlier order dated 31.12.1994. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by aforesaid order filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. Petitioners submit that before Appellate Authority petitioner has not been impleaded as party in trial Court neither in appeal filed by respondent No. 2. As soon as petitioners came to know regarding pendency of aforesaid appeal, moved an impleadment application on 3.6.1997 before respondent No. 1 on the ground that they have been allotted pattas in their favour and they are in possession over the land allotted to them, therefore, they are necessary party to be impleaded. The impleadment application was allowed. Respondent No. 1 by impugned order dated 2.6.1999 illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 24.1.1997 and discharged the notice issued to respondent No. 2 and has held that there is no surplus land of respondent No. 2. 5. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 1 has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising powers while deciding the appeal. The case was remanded back to prescribed authority to determine whether sale deed in the name of Ashok Kumar, this plea was taken by respondent No. 2 or not. The trial Court decided the case strictly in accordance with direction of remand order but appellate Court has decided appeal outside the scope of remand order. No reasons have been recorded by respondent No. 1 in reversing the order passed by prescribed authority. As petitioners are allottees by State-respondent, being a landless person and patta has been granted in their favour and they are in possession of property in dispute, therefore, they have full right to file present writ petition before this Court and impleadment application filed by petitioners before the Appellate Authority has also been allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 whose appeal has been allowed by Appellate Authority has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition and locus of petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 whose appeal has been allowed by Appellate Authority has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition and locus of petitioners. It has been submitted that proceeding under provision of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated against one Ram Lal, tenure holder by issuing notice to him and prescribed authority vide its order dated 31.12.1984 declared 1.640 hectares land as surplus, the said order was challenged in appeal and matter was remanded to the prescribed authority. However, prescribed authority again on remand decided the matter as afresh reaffirming the determination made by him earlier. The aforesaid order was challenged in appeal, which was allowed in order impugned in writ petition. Therefore, it is not disputed that after determination was made by then prescribed authority by judgment and order dated 31.12.1984, settlement of land was made by prescribed authority of surplus land after following procedure and petitioners were allotted part of land declared surplus. There is no dispute to this effect that respondents have never given a choice of surplus land at any point of time because proceedings against respondent No. 2 had not become final. However, allotment is always subject to ultimate result of proceeding, as such, no independent right upon petitioners are there to maintain the writ petition challenging the proceedings against the tenure holder. Admittedly, the respondent-State has decided not to challenge the order passed by appellate Court by filing writ petition. Allotment in favour of petitioners is always subject to final outcome of main proceeding. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent has brought to the notice of the Court Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The same is being reproduced below : "14. Allotment in favour of petitioners is always subject to final outcome of main proceeding. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent has brought to the notice of the Court Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The same is being reproduced below : "14. Acquisition of surplus land.—(1) The Collector shall at any time after— (a) in case, where the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 has become final, the date of its so becoming final; or (b) in case, where no appeal has been preferred under Section 13, the date of expiry of the period of limitation provided therefor; or (c) in case, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 13, the date of its decision; take possession of the surplus land determined under Section 11, Section 12 or Section 13 and also of any ungathered crop or fruits of trees, not being crops or fruits to which sub-section (1) of Section 15 applies, after evicting any person found in occupation of such land, crops or fruits and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a tenure-holder may, at any time, voluntarily deliver possession to the Collector over the whole or any part of the land held by him which has been or is likely to be declared surplus under or in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (3) Where the Collector has taken possession of any surplus land or ungathered crops or fruits of trees under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) such land, crops or fruits of trees shall, with effect from the date referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1), stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and all rights, title and interests of all persons in such land shall, with effect from such date, stand extinguished : Provided that the encumbrances, if any, shall attach to the amount payable under Section 17 in substitution for the surplus land. (4) The Prescribed Authority shall, as soon as may be after the date mentioned in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1), notify in the official Gazette every surplus land determined under this Act, or under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 or under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976.” 8. Taking support of the aforesaid section, learned Counsel for respondents submits that unless and until order has become final, no allotment can be made of surplus land declared of a tenure holder. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment reported in 1984 ALJ 403, Raj Bahadur and others v. District Judge, Hamirpur and another and reliance has been placed upon Para 4 of said judgment. The same is being reproduced below : “4. The petitioners claimed to be the allottees of the land. It is said that the allotment was made on 25.6.1976. It should be seen that no allotment could be made on the said date as the ceiling proceedings had not become final before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority finally disposed of the ceiling case on 21.12.1977 as is clear from the judgment of this Court in the earlier writ petition (Annexure 2 to this petition). Thereafter, an appeal was filed. The appellate Court decided initially on 3.2.1979. I have already stated above that against the said appellate Court judgment dated 3.2.1979, the earlier writ petition was filed and I allowed the same and remanded the case again to the appellate Court, which finally decided the appeal by the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 5.9.1981. It is, therefore, obvious that during the pendency of these ceiling proceedings first before the Prescribed Authority and thereafter before the appellate Court, no valid allotment could be made in favour of anyone. In the ceiling proceedings the alleged allottees did not have any locus standi. The contest was between the tenure-holder and the State. It is not necessary to consider the case of the transferees etc. from the tenure-holder to determine whether in the ceiling proceedings such transferees have a locus standi or not. However, so far as the alleged allottees are concerned. The contest was between the tenure-holder and the State. It is not necessary to consider the case of the transferees etc. from the tenure-holder to determine whether in the ceiling proceedings such transferees have a locus standi or not. However, so far as the alleged allottees are concerned. I am clear in my mind that they did not come at all in the picture till the ceiling proceedings became final and the notification under Section14 of the Act is issued. I have already stated above that the final verdict of the appellate Court was that the tenure-holder did not hold any surplus land and, therefore, the notice under Section10(2) of the Act stood discharged. In such a situation, there was no question of any surplus land vesting in the State and being the subject-matter of any allotment.” 9. Another judgment has been relied upon by learned Counsel for respondents reported in 2001 (92) RD 538, Ram Bhajan v. Chief Revenue Officer/Prescribed Authority, Mirzapur and others. Reliance has been placed upon para 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the said judgment. The same are being reproduced below : “13. It is well settled that the matter of declaration of the land as surplus is between the State and the tenure holder and nobody comes in between and thus once the State has chosen not to take up the matter to the higher forum, challenging the judgment of the Prescribed Authority by which notice for declaration of the land as surplus itself was withdrawn, no argument can be advanced by the petitioner raising any finger on this aspect that the tenure holder might have surplus land if the matter is examined in further details in the light of the facts as are being pleaded by him. 14. It is also settled that the allottee cannot acquire any better right than the right as exists with the State and thus the State itself having no right to the land as the same did not remain as surplus the claim of the allottee will fall short as the giver himself is not possessed to part anything to the petitioner. 15. 15. The decisions as has been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner although lays down that the allottee has to be given opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the allotment, but in my opinion those decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. Those decisions can only apply when there is proceedings for cancellation of the allotment and some impropriety and illegality in the allotment proceedings are alleged, which can be subject matter of enquiry and scrutiny in that cancellation proceedings for which certainly the allottee will have to be given opportunity of hearing so that he can demonstrate the completion of all the formalities and validity of the allotment. But so far the present case is concerned neither the tenure holder has taken any ground nor have challenged the validity of the allotment on any ground which may be available for cancellation of the allotment. Here by virtue of the fact that by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority no land remained as surplus and thus as a consequence thereof the Prescribed Authority has directed to restore the correct position of the revenue records and therefore, the decision as has been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner will not fit in the facts of the present case. 16. In fact the land having been given to the allottee by the Collector, the allottee cannot get any better title than the Collector was possessed, as the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the Collector. In view of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.5.86 the restoration of the correct entry in the revenue record and even restitution of the possession will be an automatic follow-up to which the petitioner can have no say in the matter as he has no locus standi to intervene in the matter of declaration of the land as surplus.” 10. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned Counsel for respondents submits that unless and until proceeding is finalized or order became final, allottee cannot acquire any better right than the right as exists with the State. 11. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. 12. From the record it is clear that initially when notice was given to respondent No. 2, on an objection the prescribed authority decided and declared 1.640 hectare land as surplus on 31.12.1994. 11. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. 12. From the record it is clear that initially when notice was given to respondent No. 2, on an objection the prescribed authority decided and declared 1.640 hectare land as surplus on 31.12.1994. Immediately after declaration by prescribed authority without waiting for finalisation of proceeding, prescribed authority has taken possession of land declared surplus of respondent No. 2 and the same has been allotted to petitioners. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against order dated 31.12.1994 and said appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back to prescribed authority. Prescribed authority by order dated 24.1.1997 confirmed the earlier order dated 31.12.1994. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal, which was numbered as Appeal No. 8/2/2/9 of 1996-97 and the said appeal was allowed by order dated 2.6.1999 and has discharged the notice, meaning thereby no land of respondent No. 2 was surplus. Meaning thereby if any allotment is made on the basis of order passed by prescribed authority that will become null and void immediately after order dated 2.6.1999 when Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 2 and the State has not chosen to file writ petition before this Court against the said order. As the land in question was allotted by prescribed authority only on the basis of earlier order dated 31.12.1994. Application filed by petitioners for impleadment before Appellate Authority was allowed. Meaning thereby petitioners were given an opportunity to be heard. In spite of aforesaid fact, Appellate Authority has passed an order in favour of respondent No. 2 discharging the notice and has held that no land of respondent No. 2 is surplus. The effect of aforesaid order, which has become final, respondent No. 2 is entitled to get possession of land declared surplus and allotted to the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 31.12.1994. 13. This Court in Raj Bahadur’s case (supra) has held that “it is obvious that during the pendency of these ceiling proceedings first before the prescribed authority and thereafter appellate Court, no valid allotment could be made in favour of anyone.” In the ceiling proceedings the alleged allottees did not have any locus standi. Context is between tenure holder and the State. Context is between tenure holder and the State. This Court has further held that “however, so far as the alleged allottees are concerned, I am clear in my mind that they did not come at all in the picture till the ceiling proceedings became final and the notification under Section 14 has been issued.” As this Court has already held that the appellate Court has decided in favour of respondent No. 2 and has held that no surplus land is there and notice is discharged, therefore, in such situation, there was no question of any surplus land vesting in the State and being the subject matter of any allotment. 14. In Ram Bhajan’s case (supra), this Court has further held that “if order has become final and it has not been challenged by the State, the restoration of possession after discharge of notice in the revenue record is an automatic follow-up to which allottee can have no say and they have no locus standi to intervene in the matter of declaration of the land as surplus.” 15. In view of aforesaid proposition of law as held by this Court and in view of Section 14 of the Act, it is clear that unless and until proceeding against tenure holder has become final, in case, any allotment is made and if the notice under Section 10 is discharged, the tenure holder is entitled to possession. In any event, if the respondent-State during pendency of proceeding on the basis of order passed by prescribed authority, allot the land to certain persons and handover possession, as soon as the notice is discharged the restoration of possession to the tenure holder is automatic. The allottees in that circumstances, will have no right to say regarding the validity and genuineness of the order passed in favour of tenure holder. It is only State, who comes in picture to challenge the order passed, if any, in favour of tenure holder. Admittedly, the order dated 2.6.1999 has become final as it regards to the State. State has not filed any writ petition challenging the said order. It is only State, who comes in picture to challenge the order passed, if any, in favour of tenure holder. Admittedly, the order dated 2.6.1999 has become final as it regards to the State. State has not filed any writ petition challenging the said order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in spite of fact that petitioners were permitted to be impleaded before the Appellate Authority and they have been given opportunity to be heard but in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellate authority has already discharged the notice vide its order dated 2.6.1999 and has held that no land of respondent No. 2 is surplus, therefore, consequence of that will be that respondent No. 2 will be entitled to get possession of surplus land held by prescribed authority in his earlier order. Petitioners will have no right to challenge the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 2.6.1999. Only the State can have a say regarding the validity of the order dated 2.6.1999 passed by Appellate Authority but admittedly, the State has not filed any writ petition before this Court, challenging the order passed by appellate authority and that has become final. 16. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition filed by petitioners is not maintainable and as such, is hereby dismissed. 17. I have come across various cases during this period that in spite of specific provision provided under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the officers of State, reasons best known to them, making allotment of those surplus land in which proceedings against tenure holder have not become final. The officers of the State are duty bound to comply various provisions of law. If there is a provision under the Act that till the finality is attached, land should not be allotted to anybody. But in the present case, admittedly, immediately after the order passed by prescribed authority, land has been allotted to petitioners. This action of respondent-State gives multiplicity of proceedings though it has been held by this Court that allottees have got no right or locus to agitate the genuineness of surplus land declared by authorities and regarding discharge of notice. But in the present case, admittedly, immediately after the order passed by prescribed authority, land has been allotted to petitioners. This action of respondent-State gives multiplicity of proceedings though it has been held by this Court that allottees have got no right or locus to agitate the genuineness of surplus land declared by authorities and regarding discharge of notice. In such situation, it will be appropriate that the District Magistrate of each district may be directed to take appropriate steps intimating the subordinate officers not to allot any surplus land under this Act unless and until from the record it is verified that proceeding against tenure holder has become final. 18. Registrar General of this Court is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to all the District Magistrates of State of U.P. for compliance in future. 19. No order as to costs. ————