Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The Petitioners claim themselves to be lease holders of surplus land alleged to have been so declared under the orders of the Prescribed
Authority dated 15.2.1975 and 18.7.1990. These orders have been set aside in appeal on 11.11.2003 at the instance of tenure holders
Respondent No. 4 and 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner filed a recall application for recalling the order dated
11.11.2003. This was done on the ground that the Petitioners were not parties to the said appeal. After four years they filed a writ petition assailing
the order dated 11.11.2003 before this Court being Writ Petition No. 51827 of 2007 in which an order was passed that it shall be open to the
Petitioner to file an application for setting aside the order dated 11.4.2003. The writ petition was got dismissed as not pressed vide order dated
25.10.2007 Annexure 8 to the writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has now come up before this Court for a mandamus that the authority be directed to decide the recall
application which has been filed pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 25.10.2007.
4. In the opinion of the Court the Petitioners can be valid lease holders provided the land is surplus. In view of the facts that have been brought on
record the order of the Prescribed Authority itself has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. The Petitioners did not press their writ
petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2003 passed in appeal.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts it is evident that the State was a party to the proceedings in appeal which has become final in the year 2003 itself.
The State did not file any writ petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2003. Learned Counsel submits that the State has also filed a recall
application before the appellate authority.
Whether such a recall application is maintainable or not can be looked into by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 which does not provide for any review or recall of an order finally passed in appeal. The State or the
Petitioners therefore may be well advised to pursue their recall application but only in accordance with law provided such an application is
maintainable under the act. It is for the Petitioners or the State to pursue their application before the Appellate Authority. There is No. occasion for
this Court (sic)o issue any mandamus at this stage.
6. The writ petition is dismissed with he aforesaid observations.