Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17132 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000002 of 1999 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Lucknow Respondent :- Smt. Shakuntla Devi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chief Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- Chief Standing Counsel,Mohammad Aslam Khan,Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar Singh Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner - State and Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. A proceeding under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was initiated by issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the said Act. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 21.03.1986, the claim setup by Smt. Shakuntla Devi was rejected. Respondent No.3 had set aside the order dated 21.03.1986 passed by the prescribed authority on 30.06.1997. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissed the appeal of respondent No.1. The petitioner filed an application for recall of order dated 30.06.1997, which was ultimately rejected by the appellate court. 3. Inviting objections in respect of proposed surplus area the objection filed by respondent No.1 on 25.11.1983, the application for recall of order dated 30.06.1997 alleging that order passed on 28.02.1997 was passed after hearing the parties and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed written argument on 22.05.1995 / 24.02.1987. 4. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 30.06.1997 and 27.02.1998 contained as annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition, whereby the matter has been remanded back to the prescribed authority to determine the aspect of the matter specially in regard to sale deed executed on 02.01.1972. 4. Submission of learned Additional CSC for the petitioner - State is that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His next submission is that the appellate authority has not considered the grievance raised by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent invited attention of this Court on the order passed by the appellate Court dated 30.06.1997, wherein on page 23 finding has been returned that the State was given full opportunity of hearing, his objection was considered and he was heard in opposition, therefore, the question of giving opportunity of hearing has no merit. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. On perusal of impugned order, it is evident that the State was given full opportunity of hearing and his objection filed therein was fully considered and he was heard in opposition, therefore, the question of giving opportunity of hearing has no material basis and is rejected. 8. In regard to grievance that claim of the petitioner was not considered, in the opinion of this Court the claim setup by the State was duly considered and thereafter, the matter was remanded back to the prescribed authority to determine the claim setup by the parties, therefore, this grievance also does not have any basis. 9. In view of reasons assigned above, the appellate court has rightly remanded the matter to the prescribed authority to re- determine the claim setup by the parties, therefore, there is no interference called for in the order of appellate Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the prescribed authority to hear the parties and to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Adarsh K Singh Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench