Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
U.P. and others reported in 2002 (3) AWC
2271.
11. Even otherwise, a Division Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal No. 118 of
2011 decided on 27.1.2011 has held as
follows:
"According to us, there is a difference
between right and expectation. Definitely
an institution has a right to impart
education but right to be an examination
centre can not be an available right to the
institution."
12. The challenge raised therefore is
unfounded and there is no merit in the
petition.
13. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2011
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14735 of 2011
Nagina and others
Versus.
State of U.P. and others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C.Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and land
Holding Act-Section-11-A-Petitioner's
land declared surplus-while they became
Seerdars-thereafter Bhumindhar under
Z.A. & L.R. Act-during consolidation they
have been allotted Chak-and in are
possession-held-pending disposal of
objections-interim protection from
dispossession given.
Held: Para 7
Relying on the said decisions, it is urged
that even otherwise this Court has
acknowledged that recorded and even
unrecorded tenure holders are entitled
to be heard in the ceiling proceedings
and objections under Section 11 (2) have
to be disposed of before any other
remedy is availed of by a person claiming
rights. Sri R.C. Singh has invited the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 32,
33 and 34 of the decision in the case of
Virendra Deep Singh and others Vs.
District Magistrate, Rampur, and others,
2010 (10) ADJ 646 (DB), to urge that the
objections under Section 11 (2) are
obviously subsequent to the
determination of surplus land which
entitles a tenure holder aggrieved to file
an objection.
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J)
1. This writ petition has been filed
by 9 tenure holders claiming themselves
to be the recorded tenure holders of the
disputed plots which is alleged to have
been declared as surplus under the
provisions of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling and Land Holdings Act.
2. The contention raised is that the
land in question had been settled in favour
of the petitioners by the erstwhile
Zamindars of the land and by virtue of
such settlement, they have become
Seerdars and again Bhumindhars i.e.
tenure holders in their own right under the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, by operation
of law.
3. The petitioners also contend that
their names were recorded in the revenue
records and for that they have relied upon
the extract of Khatauni between 1366-