Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1314 (ALL)

KARAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-05-17

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Hearing in this case was concluded earlier, whereafter this case was adjourned for further hearing, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.10.2016, which reads as under : “Petitioners, in the instant petition, claim to be landless labourers, and were consequently allotted land, which had been declared ceiling surplus, at the hands of tenure holder Shiv Kumar i.e. father of respondent No. 4. Grievance raised in the writ petition is that although nearly 40 years have lapsed, since declaration of land as ceiling surplus and allotment of land in favour of the petitioners in 1978, but possession of such land is yet to be delivered to the petitioners. In this context, following prayer has been made in the writ petition : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to deliver the possession of the petitioners plot bearing plot No. 52M area 1.268 Hectare, Plot No. 52M area 1.265 Hectare, Plot No. 52M area 1.265 Hectare, 52M area 1.265 Hectare, Plot No. 41 area 1.303 Hectare, Plot No. 44, 45, 11M area 1.265 Hectare and plot No. 49M area 1.265 Hectare situated in village Chak Mangraula, Pargana & Tashil Dadri, District Ghaziabad to the petitioners expeditiously within a time bound period as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court.” Petitioners contend that orders declaring land as ceiling surplus at the hands of father of respondent No. 4, as well as his other elder brothers, have attained finality upto the Apex Court with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19819 of 2012, decided on 1.4.2013. Respondent No. 4, however, asserts that he was not a party to all such litigation, and is not bound by it. In such circumstances, following orders were passed in the matter on 17.8.2016 : “It is stated that petitioners were allotted land, which had been declared as ceiling surplus at the hands of respondent No. 4 and his family members. According to petitioners, such ceiling proceedings travelled upto the Apex Court and have attained finality. Grievance of the petitioners is that though valid patta was executed in their favour, but possession thereof is being denied on account of disputes raised by the private respondents. According to petitioners, such ceiling proceedings travelled upto the Apex Court and have attained finality. Grievance of the petitioners is that though valid patta was executed in their favour, but possession thereof is being denied on account of disputes raised by the private respondents. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that respondent No. 4 was not a party to the earlier proceedings and even otherwise, the land of village Chak Bangraula situates in the State of Haryana, and as such, it could not have been taken into consideration for the purposes of declaring ceiling surplus land at the hands of respondent No. 4. It is contended that even otherwise, respondent No. 4 was never extended choice to indicate as to which land is to be surrendered, particularly as the dispute continued to remain pending right upto the year 2013. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state authorities, in such circumstances, is directed to obtain specific instructions on the issues, noticed above. It shall also be inquired as to whether any valid patta has been executed in favour of the petitioners or not in respect of the land in question. Put up as fresh once again on 26.8.2016.” Hearing in the matter continued on several dates, as it would be clear from the order sheet, and Sri Manish Goel appearing for respondent No. 4 was heard at the considerable length. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 was confronted with the scope of petition, and it was pointed out that arguments proposed to be advanced beyond the scope of proceedings would not be entertained. Arguments, accordingly, were concluded, and judgement in the matter was reserved. Leave was granted to the parties to file their written arguments, and date was fixed for delivery of orders. Learned counsel counsel for respondent No. 4 in his written statement, at the very outset, states as under : “The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent No. 2 and 3 to deliver the possession of the plots mentioned in the prayer situated in Village Chak Mangraula, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad within a time bound period. There is no other prayer made in the writ petition and on account of the fact that no prayer was made in the writ petition, the arguments of the parties were confined only on the issue relating to possession by the Hon’ble Court. Parties were not permitted to argue upon the rights of the respondent No. 4 and also not to address the Hon’ble Court on the merits of the proceedings that were going on before the revenue authorities of which reference has been made in the writ petition.” Learned counsel, on the scope of written submissions, has again stated as under at page 17: F: Scope of Present Written Submissions: With utmost humility and respect, it is submitted that since the issue was confined by the Hon’ble Court to be addressed only on possession and not with respect to the ceiling proceedings or with respect to the right and interest left in the answering respondent, the answering respondent is not making written submissions in this regard and is reserving right to submit written submissions if the Hon’ble Court considers it expedient and proper to be heard on such issue for which the answering respondent craves leave to the Hon’ble Court to be granted opportunity of oral submission followed by written submissions. As such, the answering respondent is confining scope of the present written submission only on the issue of possession and not with respect to the validity or otherwise of the ceiling proceedings and right flowing or vesting in the answering respondent thereto.” Having gone through the written statements filed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, it seems that learned counsel for respondent No. 4 feels constrained by the scope of arguments allowed in the matter to him, and prayer for grant of further hearing has been made. It is cardinal principle of law that justice should not only be done, but seems to have been done. Scope of argument necessarily has to be confined to the prayers made in the writ petition, but a counsel must not feel deprived of opportunity to make submissions. In order to do justice between the parties, let this matter appear once again in the additional cause list on 26th October, 2016 at 3:00 pm for further hearing. Scope of argument necessarily has to be confined to the prayers made in the writ petition, but a counsel must not feel deprived of opportunity to make submissions. In order to do justice between the parties, let this matter appear once again in the additional cause list on 26th October, 2016 at 3:00 pm for further hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 shall be at liberty to advance his argument on any other aspect, as he intends to make on behalf of respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would also have liberty to file further written argument in the matter by 27th October, 2016, so that proceedings be concluded by then.” 2. Hearing could not be concluded on the date fixed i.e. 26.10.2016. Change of roster intervened. This matter thereafter has been nominated to this Court for hearing by Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 19.4.2017. The writ petition has consequently been placed again before this Court. Arguments were heard on 16.5.2017 and following orders were passed : “Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nipun Singh, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goel, Advocate, assisted by Sri D.K. Dwivedi appearing for the respondent No. 4. Arguments are advanced by Sri Manish Goel on the aspect of right of respondent No. 4 over the property in question in the context of declaration by the State of land being surplus at the hands of tenure holder, who happened to be the father of respondent No. 4. It is contended by Sri Goel that certain part of the property had gone to the State of Haryana in 1975, and therefore, it could not have been included for the purposes of determination of surplus land at the hands of the tenure holder and this aspect of the matter has not been considered. It is, however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that all such questions and objections were available to the tenure holder and whether actually raised or not, would be treated to have been considered and rejected in view of the principles of constructing res judicata. It is also pointed out that respondent No. 4 being a minor at the time when ceiling proceedings came into being was not covered by the definition of tenure holder, and therefore, at his instance such proceedings cannot be objected to now. It is also pointed out that respondent No. 4 being a minor at the time when ceiling proceedings came into being was not covered by the definition of tenure holder, and therefore, at his instance such proceedings cannot be objected to now. Sri Manish Goel seeks indulgence to rely upon certain decisions in that regard. Put up tomorrow i.e. on 17.5.2017, as first case in the additional cause list.” 3. Sri Manish Goyal, assisted by Sri D.K. Dwivedi, appearing for the respondent No. 4 has been heard in continuation, on the aspects noticed above. A short note of submissions as well as a compilation of judgments has been filed, which is taken on record. 4. Petitioners, who are 7 in number, claim to have been allotted ceiling surplus land and their names have been duly mutated in the revenue records. Their grievance is that although small agricultural plots were allotted to them, but they are being deprived of its fruits, inasmuch as private respondent due to his influence is still holding on his possession over such ceiling surplus land allotted to the petitioners, virtually acting as land grabbers. This, despite the fact that declaration of ceiling surplus land at the hands of tenure holder i.e. father of respondent No. 4, has attained finality upto the Apex Court. 5. The land in question was declared ceiling surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1960”) vide order dated 1.10.1975. The order of Prescribed Authority dated 1.10.1975 reads as under : “This is a case under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The objector has not turned up today inspect of proper information to him. N.T. Ceiling is present. It appears that the objector does not want to press his objection. The land is in U.P. and Revenue records maintained by U.P. State and there is no evidence to the contrary. The notice is hereby confirmed.” 6. A review filed against the order by tenure holder was also rejected on 25.11.1976. A subsequent attempt to seek review of this order failed again. It was at this stage that part of ceiling surplus land at the hands of tenure holder late Shiv Kumar came to be allotted to the petitioners on 1.7.1978. Admittedly, he was the recorded tenure holder when ceiling proceedings commenced. A subsequent attempt to seek review of this order failed again. It was at this stage that part of ceiling surplus land at the hands of tenure holder late Shiv Kumar came to be allotted to the petitioners on 1.7.1978. Admittedly, he was the recorded tenure holder when ceiling proceedings commenced. An appeal filed by him was also rejected on 12.9.1986. Three sons of tenure holder Shiv Kumar i.e. Billu @ Sunil, Bhoop Singh, Rakesh filed another set of objection under Section 11(2) read with Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 before the Prescribed Authority, which was registered as Case No. 5 of 1987. These objectors were minor when ceiling proceedings commenced. Respondent No. 4 although is the younger brother of three objectors and was also a minor when ceiling proceedings started had not joined his three elder brothers/objectors. Such objection was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 24.3.1987. Appeal No. 3 of 1987 preferred against such order was also rejected by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Dvision, Meerut on 20.11.1987. Both the orders were challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1988 by objectors/brothers of respondent No. 4, in which an interim order came to be passed on 18.4.1988. The present petitioners also filed an application for impleadment in this writ petition. While writ petition was filed by the three brothers of respondent No. 4, their father Shiv Kumar i.e. the tenure holder was still alive. The tenure holder allowed the order of Prescribed Authority dated 1.10.1975 as affirmed in appeal on 12.9.1986 to attach finality. The tenure holder Shiv Kumar died on 21.2.2007 during the pendency of writ petition. The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by this Court on 14.5.2012 vide following orders : “1. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and Sri M.K. Gupta for respondents. 2. Writ petition is directed against the orders dated 23.4.1987 passed by Prescribed Authority, Ghaziabad and 30.11.1987 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut rejecting petitioners’ appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners’ father Shiv Kumar owned certain land. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and Sri M.K. Gupta for respondents. 2. Writ petition is directed against the orders dated 23.4.1987 passed by Prescribed Authority, Ghaziabad and 30.11.1987 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut rejecting petitioners’ appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners’ father Shiv Kumar owned certain land. Ceiling proceedings were initiated under Section 10 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1960”) wherein notice was issued to petitioners’ father and he filed objection on 18.12.1974 whereafter Prescribed Authority passed order on 1.10.1975 declaring certain area of land surplus and review application filed by petitioner’s father has also been rejected on 25.11.1976. He filed another application for review which was also rejected and thereafter he filed appeal which was dismissed on 12.9.1986. Thereafter petitioners filed an objection on 19.3.1987 stating that land in question is situated in two different villages namely Village Mozamabad and Chak Mangorla. The former is in the State of Haryana and therefore the same could not have been included for the purpose of ceiling proceedings. However, they sought to challenge the earlier proceedings on the ground that no notice was served upon petitioners though they were also sharer in the land in question. It is this objection of petitioners, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 13 to writ petition, which has been rejected by Prescribed Authority by order dated 23.4.1987 and appeal thereagainst has been rejected by Additional Commissioner by order dated 30.11.1987. 4. From para 5 of objection (Annexure 13 to writ petition) it is evident that petitioners 1 to 3 have disclosed their date of birth as 5.4.1965, 21.12.1966 and 4.4.1962 respectively. Therefore the aforesaid ceiling proceedings which were finalized on 1.10.1975 when Prescribed Authority passed order, all the three petitioners were minor and admittedly notice of ceiling proceeding was issued to their father who contested the matter and thereafter ceiling proceedings were finalized. In these circumstances, the order which has already been passed by Prescribed Authority and has attained finality cannot be reopen at the instance of petitioners at this stage and therefore, I find no reason to interfere. 5. Dismissed.” 7. In these circumstances, the order which has already been passed by Prescribed Authority and has attained finality cannot be reopen at the instance of petitioners at this stage and therefore, I find no reason to interfere. 5. Dismissed.” 7. Challenge laid to the judgment dated 14.5.2012 before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19819 of 2012 failed with its dismissal on 1.4.2013 vide following orders : “Application for impleadment is allowed. The Special leave petition is dismissed.” 8. Petitioners thereafter raised a grievance before the District Magistrate concerned about their not being able to undertake cultivation over their allotted land due to interference of private respondent No. 4 and his brothers. The District Magistrate directed the Sub Divisional Officer concerned to investigate the matter and to ensure compliance of the orders passed. The Sub Divisional Officer also called for certain reports in the matter. Petitioners’ grievance is that despite their repeated endeavours and directions of the authorities, they are not being permitted to cultivate the land allotted to them, and consequently, have approached this Court. 9. In between, respondent No. 4 appears to have instituted a claim under Section 27(4) of the Act of 1960, stating that on account of judicial proceedings, which remained pending, he continued to remain in possession and that possession of the allotted land has not been taken from him so far. Allotment proceedings made in favour of the present petitioners was also questioned. It is stated that respondent No. 4 has never been put to any notice nor possession was taken from him and that petitioners are not eligible for allotment of land. A revenue suit under Section 229-B for declaration also appears to have been filed by respondent No. 4, seeking declaration of right over such land on account of continuous possession over the land declared surplus. These proceedings appears to have been kept pending. Taking advantage of such proceedings respondent No. 4 appears to have continued in possession over ceiling surplus land and the orders passed in ceiling proceedings as well as allotment of land to petitioners remained only on paper. These proceedings appears to have been kept pending. Taking advantage of such proceedings respondent No. 4 appears to have continued in possession over ceiling surplus land and the orders passed in ceiling proceedings as well as allotment of land to petitioners remained only on paper. A contempt petition was thus filed by the petitioners before this Court being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 283 of 2016, which came to be dismissed on 16.2.2016, vide following orders : “Vakalatnama filed by Sri Manish Goyal, learned Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 3 is taken on record. Sri Bachchu Singh, the opposite party No. 1, who was Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar and is presently posted as City Magistrate, Noida and Sri Subhash Yadav, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar are present in the Court and have been identified by Sri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appear on their behalf. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 informs that no notice was issued to the opposite party No. 3, however, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel was directed to seek instructions and asked the opposite party No. 3 to remain present in the Court. The presence of opposite No. 3 is, accordingly exempted. It is contended by Sri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the present contempt petition is not entertainable inasmuch as no writ in favour of the petitioners/applicants was issued to decide their claim of allotment of the land in question, which was declared surplus as early as on 1.10.1975. In the present contempt application, the allegation is of violation of the Writ Court order dated 14.5.2012 in Writ-C No. 3421 of 1988 (Billu (now deceased and others v. State of U.P. and others) and the order of Apex Court dated 1.4.2013 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s). 19819 of 2012 (Bhoop Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others). The Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1988 was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of Shiv Kumar who was the original tenure holder of the disputed land. It was dismissed on the ground that the ceiling proceedings have been finalized much earlier and there is no reason to interfere. The petitioners/applicants had challenged the order of the Writ Court in SLP which was also dismissed on 1.4.2013. It was dismissed on the ground that the ceiling proceedings have been finalized much earlier and there is no reason to interfere. The petitioners/applicants had challenged the order of the Writ Court in SLP which was also dismissed on 1.4.2013. So far as the applicants are concerned, they claim that they have been allotted the land which was declared surplus through a legal process by the order dated 1.7.1978 of the Commissioner. However, on account of the objections raised by the tenure holders, the respondent authorities are keeping the matter pending. It is stated by learned counsel for applicants that once the ceiling proceedings have attained finality, the opposite parties are under obligation to hand over the possession to them. Be that as it may, the applicants have never approached any Court of law and there is no direction in their favour. In view thereof, no contempt is made out. The Contempt Application is dismissed. The applicants may approach to appropriate forum/Court for redressal of their grievances.” 10. Petitioners allege that they are being made to run from pillar to post, despite ceiling proceedings having attained finality as against private respondents, and they are not being allowed to use land declared ceiling surplus and allotted to them. 11. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which factum of declaration of land in question as ceiling surplus at the hands of father of respondent No. 4, the then recorded tenure holder, is admitted. Allotment of land in favour of petitioners is also not disputed. It is stated in para 20 that the process of delivery of possession was not actuated due to pendency of Court cases from time to time. 12. Counter-affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 4 stating that ceiling proceedings are nullity inasmuch as part of the land declared surplus situate in State of Haryana and could not be included in the ceiling proceedings. It is also stated that no valid allotment was made in favour of petitioners, and they have no right to claim possession. It is also stated that right of tenure holder/respondent to indicate choice to surrender land is yet to be exercised, and allotment proceedings at such stage was impermissible. It is also stated that no valid allotment was made in favour of petitioners, and they have no right to claim possession. It is also stated that right of tenure holder/respondent to indicate choice to surrender land is yet to be exercised, and allotment proceedings at such stage was impermissible. It is stated that since ceiling surplus land has not yet vested in the State with delivery of possession, as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act of 1960, as such the allotment of land is bad in law. It is stated that respondent No. 4 has acquired right over the land in question and no direction can be issued to the authorities to give possession of ceiling surplus land to the petitioners. It is also stated that petitioners have been inconsistent in their stand inasmuch as at one stage it is stated that they have come to in possession whereas different stand is taken elsewhere. Allegation of misrepresenting correct facts is also levelled against petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has placed reliance upon decisions of the Apex Court in Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division, Bareilly, 2010 (4) SCC 728, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, 2008 (12) SCC 481, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan and another, 2008 (4) SCC 127 and Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, 2007 (8) SCC 449 , for the proposition that on account of misrepresentation made the writ petition is an abuse of process of law and no relief can be granted. Reliance is also placed upon decisions of the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 460 and G. Veerappa Pillai, Proprietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar v. Raman Ltd., Kumbakonam Tanjore District and others, AIR 1952 SC 192 , for the proposition that unless petitioners availed the statutory remedy contemplated under the Act, no mandamus can be issued. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 460 and G. Veerappa Pillai, Proprietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar v. Raman Ltd., Kumbakonam Tanjore District and others, AIR 1952 SC 192 , for the proposition that unless petitioners availed the statutory remedy contemplated under the Act, no mandamus can be issued. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon decisions in Har Chandi and others v. State, AIR 1991 ALD 24, Asharfi v. Vishwanath @ Vishram and another, 2005 (98) RD 483, Smt. Hemlata v. Commissioner Gorakhpur and others, 1994 (24) ALR 13, State of West Bengal and others v. Calcutta Mineral Supply Company Private Limited and another, 2015 (8) SCC 655 , District Collector, Vellor District v. K. Govindraj, 2016 (4) SCC 763 , Shree Sidbhali Steels Limited and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) SCC 193 and Union of India and another v. V. Kartick Chandra Mondal and another, 2010 (2) SCC 422 , to contend that allotment of patta will follow proclamation and it cannot be retrospective in operation. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions in Vijay Deep Singh v. State of U.P., 2013(9) ADJ 691 and Vishwanath Prasad v. State of U.P., 2008(2) ADJ 100 , to contend that allotment itself is void if State itself failed to take possession. On the aspect relating to locus of tenure holder to contest the petition for possession by the allottee, reliance is placed upon decisions of this Court in Smt. Chandrawati and others v. Board of Revenue and others, 2011 (3) AWC 2877 and Satendra Mani Tiwari v. Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division and others, 2004 (97) RD 153. Reliance is also placed upon judgments in Moti Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 (89) RD 231 and Chidda and others v. Azizur Rehman and others, 2003 (95) RD 231, to contend that no locus is available to an allottee to maintain writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mahhbullah and others v. State of U.P. through Collector (Maharajganj) and other, 2012 (115) RD 215, to contend that power of settlement of land under Section 27 cannot be delegated by Collector to Sub Divisional Officer. 14. I have heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nipun Singh for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 14. I have heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nipun Singh for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Manish Goel, assisted by Sri D.K. Dwivedi for the respondent No. 4, and perused the materials available on record. 15. From the facts already noticed, following aspects are beyond doubt; (i) proceedings to declare land in question as surplus at the hands of recorded tenure holder has attained finality with rejection of review as well as appeal; (ii) subsequent objection by the heirs of deceased tenure holder i.e. three elder brothers of respondent No. 4 has also been rejected by the Prescribed Authority and stands affirmed with dismissal of their appeal, Writ Petition and Special Leave to Appeal; (iii) the State proceeded with allotment over such ceiling surplus land to the petitioners, and their names have been duly recorded in revenue records over the land in question. 16. This petition has now been filed with the grievance that private respondents are interfering with right of petitioners over such allotted land, although right of tenure holder or his heirs/successors/assignees stands extinguished, having lost upto the Apex Court. The State has not objected to the claim of petitioners and only this much is stated in the counter-affidavit that on account of pendency of dispute from time to time, possession of land could not be delivered to petitioners. The petition is essentially contested by respondent No. 4. He contends that since part of holding of his father situated in State of Haryana, it could not have been included in his holding while declaring the land as surplus within the State of U.P. and that for such reason, the orders declaring land to be ceiling surplus are without jurisdiction and nullity. The second objection raised is with regard to validity of allotment in favour of petitioners. Respondent No. 4 further contends that the orders passed against tenure holder/his father, and brothers do not bind him. Right of petitioners to relief in the writ petition is also questioned on the ground of misrepresentation made, and also for the reason that tenure holders have not indicated their choice to surrender land declared ceiling surplus. It is otherwise stated that possession has not been taken by State of ceiling surplus land and such land has not vested in State. 17. It is otherwise stated that possession has not been taken by State of ceiling surplus land and such land has not vested in State. 17. The first question that requires determination is as to whether orders of ceiling authorities are bad for the reason that part of holding of tenure holder, which was taken into consideration for declaring land as ceiling surplus, situated in State of Haryana. It is claimed that tenure holder late Shiv Kumar i.e. father of respondent No. 4 had agricultural holding in two villages i.e. Chak Mangraula and Mauzammabad. It is asserted that land in village Mauzammabad situates on the other side of River Yamuna and there was a dispute as to whether such land forms part of State of U.P. or Haryana. In ceiling proceedings 45-11-7 bigha land situated in Chak Mangraula was declared as ceiling surplus. This land admittedly is situated in the State of U.P. It is with respect to declaration of 3-5-18 bigha land situated in village Mauzammabad that a dispute is raised by respondent No. 4. An issue appears to have been raised as to whether Mauzammabad and Chak Mauzammabad were two different villages or were one village. According to respondent No. 4 village Mauzammabad was held to be situated in Haryana under an award dated 14.2.1975. An objection in that regard appears to have been taken by respondent No. 4 before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority in its order dated 1.10.1975 clearly recorded a finding that land is in U.P. and is included in the revenue records maintained by the State of U.P. This objection raised by the tenure holder was accordingly rejected. It would be relevant at this stage to notice the relevant provisions of the Act of 1960, which defines “tenure holder” in following words under Section 3(14) : “tenure holder” means a person who is the holder of a holding but [except in Chapter III] does not include- (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure holder; (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure holder;” The definition clearly excludes a minor son, who is represented through recorded tenure holder. In the facts of the present case the issue as to whether land situated in State of Haryana was included in the land declared ceiling surplus appears to have been raised and rejected by the Prescribed Authority. In the facts of the present case the issue as to whether land situated in State of Haryana was included in the land declared ceiling surplus appears to have been raised and rejected by the Prescribed Authority. Such order has attained finality with dismissal of review and appeal. A subsequent attempt by the other heirs of tenure holder late Shiv Kumar, who were minor when ceiling proceedings intervened, also failed with rejection of their objection by the Prescribed Authority and dismissal of appeal. Matter ultimately travelled to this Court in Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1988 and such precise objection was dealt with by this Court vide order dated 14.5.2012, which has already been extracted above. This order has attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave Petition. The issue thus raised stands determined. Respondent No. 4 claims to be the youngest son of late Shiv Kumar. Once the issue raised by his three elder brothers i.e. sons of late Shiv Kumar has been rejected and has attained finality, the issue would not be open to challenge at the instance of respondent No. 4. This particularly is so as the law does not treat a minor as a tenure holder when tenure holder himself is available. In the facts of the present case the recorded tenure holder was available and had contested the proceedings and lost. The same issue raised at the instance of minor sons of late Shiv Kumar was also rejected by the authorities and affirmed by this Court and Apex Court. Respondent No. 4 who claims to be youngest son of tenure holder cannot claim to have a better right than his three elder brothers or the deceased tenure holder. In such circumstances, the issue sought to be raised by respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to be adjudicated all over again. It is more so as otherwise also respondent No. 4 is left with no independent right in the property after the recorded tenure holder had contested and lost the matter. The land which is allotted to the petitioners otherwise situates in village Chak Mangraula which admittedly situates in the State of U.P. 45-11-7 bigha land of village Chak Mangraula has otherwise been declared ceiling surplus at the hands of late Shiv Kumar, the then recorded tenure holder. The land which is allotted to the petitioners otherwise situates in village Chak Mangraula which admittedly situates in the State of U.P. 45-11-7 bigha land of village Chak Mangraula has otherwise been declared ceiling surplus at the hands of late Shiv Kumar, the then recorded tenure holder. In such circumstances, the objection raised by respondent No. 4 that ceiling proceedings are bad or are nullity is rejected. 18. So far as the issue relating to allotment of land in favour of petitioners is concerned, the State Government in the counter-affidavit has not disputed the factum of allotment. It further appears on record that allotment proceedings were sought to be questioned by respondent No. 4 before the revenue authorities. Such challenge appears to have failed with rejection of objection of respondent No. 4. This fact was recorded by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2016, which is quoted hereinafter : “During the course of hearing of the matter, it is informed on behalf of the petitioners that an application filed by respondent No. 4, challenging the execution of patta in favour of petitioners, has been rejected. Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 states that a writ petition is being filed challenging those orders. In the opinion of the Court as outcome of this petition may have wider consequence, therefore, it would be appropriate to defer the present writ petition so that other aspect is also examined together. Put up in the additional cause list on 5.10.2016.” 19. Although this petition was subsequently deferred on such count, but admittedly, orders passed by the revenue authorities rejecting challenge of respondent No. 4 to the allotment made in favour of petitioners have not been questioned by filing a writ petition. Sri Manish Goel submits that a review has been filed in the matter. Without commenting upon the scope of review or the merits of claim in that regard, it would be appropriate to observe that since the issue in that regard was raised and rejected, and such orders are challenged before this Court, the merits of objection in that regard need not be gone into in the present writ petition. Without commenting upon the scope of review or the merits of claim in that regard, it would be appropriate to observe that since the issue in that regard was raised and rejected, and such orders are challenged before this Court, the merits of objection in that regard need not be gone into in the present writ petition. Even otherwise, once right of respondent No. 4 is found not to exist over land declared ceiling surplus at the hands of recorded tenure holder i.e. father of respondent No. 4, he has no right to resist consequences flowing from the orders of the authorities, passed under the Act. 20. The question of choice urged on behalf of respondent No. 4 now needs examination. After the land is declared ceiling surplus, the tenure holder has a right to indicate preference to surrender plots as ceiling surplus. Such right, however, is to be exercised by the tenure holder. Admittedly, the recorded tenure holder has not exercised any such right. The three elder brothers of respondent No. 4, who have contested the matter upto the Apex Court, have also not indicated their choice, despite the fact that they have lost upto the Apex Court. I have already held that respondent No. 4 has no independent right, distinct from the tenure holder or his heirs in the matter. In such circumstances, the plea of choice appears to be lacking in bona fide and is merely a desperate attempt on his part, to somehow drag the proceedings and deny the benefit of allotment to landless labourers, who have been allotted land after it was declared ceiling surplus. The provisions of the Act cannot be permitted to be misused by respondent No. 4 in such a way that proceedings for declaration of land as ceiling surplus is nullified. A period of nearly 42 years have expired since declaration of land as ceiling surplus. The matter has otherwise travelled upto the Apex Court and heirs of recorded tenure holder have lost. The youngest heir i.e. respondent No. 4 cannot be permitted to seek reopening of the proceedings after such long lapse only because it had opted not to join his other three elder brothers, who had filed writ petition and also the Special Leave Petition but have lost. 21. The youngest heir i.e. respondent No. 4 cannot be permitted to seek reopening of the proceedings after such long lapse only because it had opted not to join his other three elder brothers, who had filed writ petition and also the Special Leave Petition but have lost. 21. So far as the allegation with regard to non payment of compensation for the land declared ceiling surplus is concerned, it would be appropriate to notice that at the instance of respondent No. 4 such an objection need not be entertained at this stage. In case compensation has not been paid so far, it is open for the respondent No. 4 to claim compensation from the authorities, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. The analogy sought to be pressed by Sri Manish Goel viz-a-viz Land Acquisition Act is wholly misconceived inasmuch as there is no provision similar to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act in the Act of 1960. Mere non payment of compensation therefore would not invalidate the ceiling proceedings which have attained finality as against the recorded tenure holder and stands affirmed upto the Apex Court. Much emphasis is laid by Sri Goel on the aspect relating to misrepresentation of facts by the present petitioners. It is stated that at some stages petitioners have claimed to be in possession while at some stages they have raised a grievance that possession is not with them. In my opinion, not much will turn on such issue inasmuch as after the land is declared surplus, and the allotment validly made in favour of petitioners they are entitled to be in possession over such land. 22. In the facts of the present case, a grievance has been raised by the petitioners before the Collector regarding denial of benefit of allotment of land to them, which has to be dealt with in accordance with law. The respondent No. 4 on one pretext or the other cannot be permitted to hold on to his possession over ceiling surplus land, which has the effect of virtually nullifying the orders passed by the authorities under the Act declaring the land ceiling surplus. The anxiety on part of respondent No. 4 to hold on to his possession despite the claim having been non suited upto the Apex Court cannot be appreciated. The anxiety on part of respondent No. 4 to hold on to his possession despite the claim having been non suited upto the Apex Court cannot be appreciated. Although voluminous judgment have been cited on behalf of respondent No. 4, which have been noticed, but after examining the facts of the present case, in my opinion, none would have any applicability in the facts of the present case. I would not be inclined to unnecessarily burden this judgment by referring to all of them, as in my opinion it is not required in the facts of the present case since issues have earlier been examined upto the Apex Court. 23. For the discussions, aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar to examine petitioners’ grievance with regard to delivery of possession, and to act strictly in accordance with law, so as to give effect to the orders passed by the ceiling authority, which have attained finality upto the Apex Court. The required exercise in that regard would be undertaken by the authority concerned, as warranted in law, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.