Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Goswami, Standing Counsel, for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Prescribed Authority dated 31.12.2013, passed in the proceedings under Section 12-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by which the application of the petitioner, giving choice of the surplus land, has been decided. 3. It has been stated that the proceedings under the Act was started against Bhupendra Singh (father of the petitioners) through notice dated 12.11.1974. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 29.01.1996, declared 6.86 acre of land, in terms of irrigated land, as surplus with the father of the petitioners. Bhupendra Singh filed an appeal from the order of Prescribed Authority, which was dismissed on 03.10.1996. Thereafter, Bhupendra Singh filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-C No. 30102 of 1996) before this court, in which, interim order dated 05.11.1996, staying the operation of the impugned orders, was granted. The interim order was extended time to time. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 11.05.2011. 4. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners filed an application under Section 12-A of the Act, revising their choice of the surplus land, on 29.06.2011.The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 10.08.2011, rejected the application of the petitioners. The petitioners, then filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-C No. 48210 of 2011) against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 10.08.2011, which was allowed by this Court, by judgment dated 24.08.2011, holding that right to give choice of surplus land is an unfettered statutory right of the tenure holder and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside. The Prescribed Authority was directed to decide the application of the petitioners, giving choice of the surplus land, afresh, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-A of the Act. 5. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority, again by order dated 28.02.2012, rejected the application of the petitioners, giving choice of the surplus land, holding that the surplus land had already been declared against the father of the petitioners, 15 years ago, as such they were not entitled to give fresh choice of the surplus land. 5. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority, again by order dated 28.02.2012, rejected the application of the petitioners, giving choice of the surplus land, holding that the surplus land had already been declared against the father of the petitioners, 15 years ago, as such they were not entitled to give fresh choice of the surplus land. The petitioners, thereafter, filed another writ petition (registered as Writ-C No. 14368 of 2012) which was again allowed by this Court, by order dated 23.03.2012 and the matter was again remanded to the Prescribed Authority to decide the application of the petitioners, giving choice of the surplus land, afresh. 6. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority called for a report from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, who submitted his report dated 12.12.2012. In this report, it has been mentioned that plot No. 1228 (area 2.17 acre) of village Bhagaura, tappa: Gahasad, pargana-Hasanpur Maghar, district Gorakhpur, which was earlier declared as surplus land, was allotted to the landless persons, but the petitioners were still in possession over this plot. Plot No. 948 (area 0.649 hectare) of village Rampur, tappa Bharivasi, which was earlier declared as surplus land, was allotted to landless persons and they were in possession over it. An area of 0.113 hectare of plot No. 248/1 (area 0.713 hectare), which was earlier declared as surplus land, was allotted to the landless persons but the petitioners were in possession of it. Plot No. 5 (area 0.263 Hectare) of village Bhabhair tappa Garhasad, which was earlier declared as surplus land, was recorded in the names of the petitioners, however, an area of 0.096 hectare of this plot, has been taken for construction of drainage and was recorded in the name of Executive Engineer, Drainage Division. 7. Thereafter, the application of the petitioners was heard by the Prescribed Authority, who by order dated 20.06.2013, held that the land, which was earlier declared as the surplus land, has already been allotted to the landless persons. The names of the allottees were recorded in the khatauni, since 1414 F. The allottees have acquired Bhumidhar with transferable right, over the land which was earlier declared surplus land. In such circumstances, the land is not free from encumbrances and the choice given by the petitioners is not liable to be accepted. On these findings the application has been rejected. The petitioners filed Writ-C No. 36562 of 2013 against the aforesaid order. In such circumstances, the land is not free from encumbrances and the choice given by the petitioners is not liable to be accepted. On these findings the application has been rejected. The petitioners filed Writ-C No. 36562 of 2013 against the aforesaid order. After exchange of pleadings, the writ petition was heard and decided by judgment dated 11.09.2013. This Court found that the petitioners filed the appeal within limitation from the order of Prescribed Authority dated 29.01.1996, which was dismissed on 03.10.1996. Thereafter stay order was obtained by the petitioners on 05.11.1996. The respondents could not show that at any point of time possession over the surplus land was taken in accordance of law. It has been well settled that so long as the surplus land is not vested in State of U.P. under Section 14 (3) of the Act, the tenure holder has right to revise his choice. The Prescribed Authority has to decide the application of choice according to the provisions of Section 12-A of the Act. Encumbrance, if any, has been created by the respondents and not be the tenure holder. On these findings order of Prescribed Authority dated 20.06.2013 was set aside and the matter has been remanded to Prescribed Authority to decide the application of the petitioners afresh. 8. After remand, Prescribed Authority, by order dated 31.12.2013 directed that after getting the pattas of plot 1228 (area 2.17 acre) of village Sauraha, plot 984 (area 0.649 hectare) of village Rampur and plot 248 (area 0.713 hectare) of village Bahrampur, canceled, the names of the petitioners be recorded over it. He declared plots 435 (area 0.575 hectare), plot 474 (area 0.874 hectare) of village Bahrampur, district Maharajganj plot 5 (area 0.167 hectare) of village Bhamaur, district Gorakhpur and plot 403 (area 0.332 hectare) of village Bhagaura, district Gorakhpur as surplus land and accepted choice of the petitioners and directed for taking possession and allotting these plots. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court, in judgment dated 11.09.2013, specifically directed the Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether possession over the surplus land was taken before allotment of the land but Prescribed Authority has illegally failed to record any findings in this respect and comply the direction of this Court. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court, in judgment dated 11.09.2013, specifically directed the Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether possession over the surplus land was taken before allotment of the land but Prescribed Authority has illegally failed to record any findings in this respect and comply the direction of this Court. Possession over surplus land was never taken by the Collector according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, allotment was null and void. The pattas, being void, are not required to be canceled in the regular proceedings under Section 27 (4) of the Act. Prescribed Authority, on the one hand accepted the choice of the surplus land as revised by the petitioners but at the same time he failed to restore possession of the petitioners over the land which earlier taken as surplus land and thus double injury has been caused to the petitioners. The petitioners are being illegally harassed. The order of Prescribed Authority is liable to be set aside. 10. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the learned Standing Counsel submits that as surplus land has already been allotted to the landless persons as such interest has been created to the allottees. In such circumstances, cancellation of pattas are necessary, before dispossessing the allottees, for which Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction and the Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 27 (4) of the Act. It is only after cancellation of pattas, the names of the petitioners can be restored over it. 11. I have considered the respective arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Neither in impugned order nor in the Counter Affidavit, the date of taking possession over the surplus land, has been given. Under the scheme of the Act, there are two stages i.e. (i) determination/declaration of the surplus land under Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and (ii) acquisition of the surplus land under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 (1) (b) and (c) which are relevant for the purposes of this case, provide that possession can be taken after expiry of the period of limitation for appeal from the order of the Prescribed Authority and in case appeal has been filed then after its disposal. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that the appeal was filed within limitation, which was dismissed on 03.10.1996. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that the appeal was filed within limitation, which was dismissed on 03.10.1996. Thereafter stay order has been granted on 05.11.1996 by this Court and possession over the surplus land has never been taken, according to the provisions Section 14 of the Act. The surplus land vests in State of U.P. under Section 14 (3) of the Act, on taking possession over it. Section 14 (4) of the Act, further castes a duty to publish the surplus land in Official Gazette. Nothing has been produced before the Court that possession over the surplus land has been taken by the Collector, according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and the surplus land has been published in Official Gazette Section 14 (4) of the Act. These are the checks provided under the Act, in order to avoid arbitrary action and harassment of the tenure holder. In case, before taking possession over the surplus land and vesting it in State of U.P., the land has been allotted then such patta are void. 12. Similar issue came for consideration before Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 2000 SC 878 . In which the land was not vested in State of U.P. but was allotted by Land Management Committee. On behalf of the allottees argument was raised that so long as patta in their favour is not canceled in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the consolidation authorities were bound to record their names as the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the patta as held by Full Bench of this Court in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, Uskar, Ghazipur, AIR 1977 All 360 (FB). Supreme Court held that at no stage, the property was vested in the State and, therefore, it could not, at any subsequent stage, vest in the Gaon Sabha. Once these plots did not vest in the State, they would not vest in the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Sabha had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant lease of those plots to the respondent. Such a lease was a void document from the inception and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not affected. Once these plots did not vest in the State, they would not vest in the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Sabha had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant lease of those plots to the respondent. Such a lease was a void document from the inception and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not affected. The patta, being a void document and is, therefore, liable to be ignored by the courts, would not affect the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Courts and they would be within their jurisdiction in adjudicating upon that document so as to finally decide the rights of the parties. From the law laid down by the Supreme Court in aforementioned case, Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction to decide as to whether the pattas were void as stated by the petitioners and in case it is void then he had jurisdiction to ignore it and restore possession of the petitioners over it. 13. Full Bench of this Court in Gangadhar Vs. Raghubar Dayal, AIR 1975 All 102 (FB) followed in Kailashiya Vs. 1st ADJ and others, 1981 AWC 143 held that the Prescribed Authority is competent to invoke the provisions of Section 144 C.P.C. for restitution of possession of tenure holder. It was found in the report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, dated 12.12.2012, that plot 1228 (area 2.17 acre) of village Bhagaura, tappa: Gahasad, pargana-Hasanpur Maghar, district Gorakhpur, an area of 0.113 hectare of plot 248/1 (area 0.713 hectare), which were allotted to the landless persons and apart from an area of 0.096 hectare of plot 5 (area 0.263 Hectare) of village Bhabhair tappa Garhasad, which was taken for construction of drainage and recorded in the names of the petitioners, were still in possession of the petitioners. Plot No. 948 (area 0.649 hectare) of village Rampur, tappa Bharivasi, which was earlier declared as surplus land, was allotted to landless persons and they were in possession over it. Thus there is no obstacle to restore the name of the petitioners over the land on which are still in possession of the petitioners. So far as the land, which are in possession of the allottees and land allotted to landless persons, opportunity of hearing is required to be given to them. Prescribed Authority, after giving opportunity of hearing, can decide as to whether pattas granted to them is void or voidable. So far as the land, which are in possession of the allottees and land allotted to landless persons, opportunity of hearing is required to be given to them. Prescribed Authority, after giving opportunity of hearing, can decide as to whether pattas granted to them is void or voidable. In case it is found void, he can restore possession as well as entries over it to the tenure holders. 14. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Prescribed Authority dated 31.12.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority, who shall decide the application of the petitioners, after giving opportunity to the allottees afresh, in accordance with the law as well as observations made above. Since the matter is lingering for a long time, the application be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of this order before him. _____________