# Surya Prakash Tiwari And Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-09
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-prakash-tiwari-and-ors-v-state-of-u-p-42606
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

of Tube -well operators Rules 1996-as
amended by amendment Rules 2008
notifed on 05.05.08- Rule 4-Regularization
of part time tube-well operators-regular
selection list notified on 09.09.1994appointment letter could be issued only on
25.05.06 when send on training-hence
such appointment can not be treated to be
made prior to the cut off date e.g.
30.06.98-can not be regularized-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-29
In
the
instant
case,
although,
the
petitioners were selected for appointment
on the post in question and their names
find place in the select list published on
09.09.1994 but the order for appointment
on the post in question has been issued in
the year 2005-2006 after completing all
the necessary formalities, so their actual
date of appointment in the Department is
the date on which they were appointed on
the post in question (i.e. in the year 20052006) and not 09.09.1994, when the select
list was published. Hence, the petitioners
were not appointed on the post of part
time Tube Well Operators before 30, June,
1998, as per the rule 4 of Regularization
Rules 1996. Thus, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order dated
21.04.2004 passed by Engineer in Chief
and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit
from the letter/order dated 17.03.2005 or
on the basis of the argument advanced on
their behalf in view of the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Indra
Kumar Singh (Supra). So, the same is not
applicable in the facts and circumstance of
the present case.

Case Law discussed:
208(26) LCD 280; [2006 (4) SCC 1; 1993 (1)
SCC 360

## Text

626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
appellant for refund of penalty amount
has been rightly rejected by the trial court
through the impugned order. The appeal
sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 8363 Of 2010

Surya Prakash Tiwari And Ors.Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ramesh Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

U.P. Irrigation Department Regularization
of Part Time Tube well operators on post
of Tube -well operators Rules 1996-as
amended by amendment Rules 2008
notifed on 05.05.08- Rule 4-Regularization
of part time tube-well operators-regular
selection list notified on 09.09.1994appointment letter could be issued only on
25.05.06 when send on training-hence
such appointment can not be treated to be
made prior to the cut off date e.g.
30.06.98-can not be regularized-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-29
In
the
instant
case,
although,
the
petitioners were selected for appointment
on the post in question and their names
find place in the select list published on
09.09.1994 but the order for appointment
on the post in question has been issued in
the year 2005-2006 after completing all
the necessary formalities, so their actual
date of appointment in the Department is
the date on which they were appointed on
the post in question (i.e. in the year 20052006) and not 09.09.1994, when the select
list was published. Hence, the petitioners
were not appointed on the post of part
time Tube Well Operators before 30, June,
1998, as per the rule 4 of Regularization
Rules 1996. Thus, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order dated
21.04.2004 passed by Engineer in Chief
and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit
from the letter/order dated 17.03.2005 or
on the basis of the argument advanced on
their behalf in view of the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Indra
Kumar Singh (Supra). So, the same is not
applicable in the facts and circumstance of
the present case.

Case Law discussed:
208(26) LCD 280; [2006 (4) SCC 1; 1993 (1)
SCC 360

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J)

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned
counsel for petitioners, Sri A.N. Trivedi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
and perused the record.

2...On07.12.1993, an advertizement was
issued/published for selection/appointment on
the
post
of
Part-Time
Tube
Well
Operator/Assistant Tube Well Operator. In
response to the said advertizement, the
petitioners and other candidates submitted
their candidature, appeared in the written test
as well as interview.

3. On 09.09.1994, the select-list was
declared. However, in the meantime,
against the judgment and order dated
18.05.1994 passed in Writ Petition No.
3538 of 1992 (Suresh Chand Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. and others), a Special Leave
Petition No. 16219 of 1992 was filed before
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in which an
interim order dated 18.03.1994 was passed,
as a result of which, an order dated
04.10.1994 (Annexure No. 3) has been
issued
by
the
Engineer-in-Chief,
2 All] Surya Prakash Tewari And Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
627
Department of Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow
that no person shall be appointed on the post
of Part time Tube Well Operator/Assistant
Tube Well Operator.

4. Thereafter, in the matter in issue
Writ Petition No. 3144 (SS) of 1995 (Vinay
Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P.) and
Writ Petition No. 1453 (SS) of 1998 (Surya
Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others)
have been filed, disposed by this Court by
means of the order dated 21.01.2000 with a
direction to authority concerned to look into
the controversy involved in the matter, in
pursuance to the said fact, an order dated
17.03.2005 has been passed by Engineer-inChief/O.P. No. 2 that although cadre of Part
time Tube Well Operator/Assistant Tube
Well operator has been declared as dying
cadre
by
Government
Order
dated
17.12.1996 and 14.01.1997, so the post in
question are not in existence, however, in
terms of the direction given by this Court in
the aforesaid matter, a request has been
made
to
the
Secretary,
Irrigation
Department of U.P., Lucknow for giving
appointment to the petitioners etc. the
relevant portion as mentioned in this regard
is quoted below:-

"इससे प है क परणाम घोषत करने
म वभागीय तर पर हआ वलब ु
अनौिच&यपूण( था तथा इसम यािचयो को
कोई दोष नह,ं था .जसके फलव1प यािचगन
अवैधािनक 1प से 3िश5ण/िनयु6 पाने से
वंिचत रह गए ।

मा0
उ:च
नयायालय
ने
अपने
िनण(य/परमादेश ;दनांक 21.01.2000 म यह
कहा है क यािचगानो को य;द िनयु6 से
अवैधािनक 1प से वंिचत ;कया गया हो तो
उ<ह िनयु6 3दान क जाये य;द र6य=
वधमान हो ।"

5. However, the recommendation as
made in the letter/order dated 17.03.2005
passed by O.P. No. 2/Chief Engineer,
Irrigation Department has not been adhered
to. The petitioners had filed the contempt
petition
for
the
purpose
of
their
appointments.
Thereafter,
Executive
Engineer has issued appointment orders on
23.05.2006
(Annexure
No.
5)
and
28.06.2006 (Annexure No. 6) of the
petitioners and in pursuance to the said fact,
they were sent for training, after completing
the same, posted/given appointment on the
post in question in the pay scale of Rs.
3050-4950/- from the date of their joining.

6. Further, for the purpose of
regularization of services on Part time
tube well operator, in terms of the
direction issued by Hon'ble the Apex
Court by order dated 18.03.1994 in
Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of
1994, a scheme for regularization has
been framed in the light of the judgment
given by the Apex Court earlier in the
case of Piyare Singh.

7. Subsequently, the State of U.P.
promulgated the rules known as the Uttar
Pradesh
Irrigation,
Department
Regularisation of Part-Time Tube-Well
Operators on the post of Tube-Well
Operators,
Rules,
1996,
the
said
regularization rules provided that those
part time Tube-Well Operators who are
engaged on or before 20.10.1986 are
working on the date of promulgation of
rules,
shall
be
considered
for
regularization and hereafter the State of
U.P. amended the cut off date also
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
presented under rule 4 of Regularization
Rules 1996 by means of Uttar Pradesh
Irrigation Department Amendment Rules,
2008 and the cut off date in Rule of 1996
was replaced by 30.06.1998, the said
amendment Rules 2008 were notified on
05.05.2008.

8. In view of the abovesaid facts,
petitioners made a representation claiming
the regularization of their services, but no
heed paid, so for redressal of their
grievances, they approached this Court by
filing Writ Petition No. 7671 (SS) of
2008, disposed of by order dated
05.12.2008 with a direction to consider
and decide the case of the petitioners for
regularization by way of passing speaking
and reasoned order. When the matter was
under consideration before the Engineer
in Chief, Irrigation Department, State of
U.P. as per the direction given by this
Court, the petitioners submitted another
representation on 23.01.2009 (Annexure
No. 10) requesting that their services may
be regularized under the provisions of
Regularization Rules 1996 as amended in
2008. In support of their claim they also
stated that the services of similarly
situated persons of District Bahraich and
Barabanki has been regularized. However,
by order dated 24.01.2009, the claim of
the petitioners has been rejected by
Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department,
State of U.P.

9. In addition to the said fact, it is
also submitted by learned counsel for
petitioners that although the petitioners
are for regularization of their services as
per
Regularization
Rules
has
been
rejected by order dated 21.01.2009 in an
arbitrary manner. Thereafter, in the year
2010, a process has been initiated for
direct recruitment on the post of Tube
Well Operator, so they again submitted a
representation dated 11.11.2010 before
State Government for regularization of
their services on the existing post, but
pending consideration. On 06.11.2010,
Superintending
Engineer,
Nalkput
Mandal, Gonda issued an advertizement
for the purpose of selection/appointment
on 32 post by way of directed recruitment.
So the present writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 21.04.2009
passed by Engineer in Chief, Irrigation
Department, State of Uttar Pradesh.

10. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned
counsel for petitioners while challenging
the impugned order submits that in
pursuance to the advertizement issued in
the year 1993 for appointment on the post
of Tube Well Operator under Executive
Engineer,
Nal
Kup
Khand-II,
the
petitioners submitted their candidature
thereafter
on
the
basis
of
written
examination and interview, a select list
was declared on 09.09.1994 in which
names of the petitioners find place,
however, due to the reasons which are not
within the control of the petitioners they
were not appointed on the post in
question. Lastly, in the year 2005-2006,
the appointment order have been issued
and they were appointed on the post in
question in view the direction issued by the
Engineer in chief by an order dated
17.03.2005, issued in compliance of the
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 3144 (SS) of 1995 (Vinal Kumar
Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others) and
Writ Petition No. 1453 (SS) of 1998 (Surya
Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others).
So, in these circumstances, they are deemed
to be appointed on 09.09.1994 when the
select list was issued, thus, they fulfill all the
requisite criteria and condition prescribed for
regularization of their services as per Rules
1996 as amended in the year 2008 on the
2 All] Surya Prakash Tewari And Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
629
post of Tube Well Operator. However, in
most illegal and arbitrary manner, contrary to
law, by an order dated 21.04.2009, the O.P.
No.
2/Engineer
in
Chief,
Irrigation
Department, State of U.P. has denied the
right of the petitioners for regularization of
services, so the same is liable to be set aside
and the writ petition be allowed. In support
of his argument, he placed reliance on the
judgment given by this Court in the case of
Indra Kumar singh and another Vs. State
of U.P. and others , 2008 (26) LCD 280.

11. Sri A.N. Trivedi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits
that the State Government had issued
notification dated 16.12.1996 and Tubewell
Operator Rules were framed known as "Uttar
Pradesh
Irrigation
Department
Regularization of Part-Time Tube-Well
Operators on the post of Tube-Well
Operators Rules, 1996" which provided that
all those part time Tub-Well Operators who
are engaged on or before 20.10.1986 are
working on the date of promulgation of rules,
shall be considered for regularization.

12. Eventually the State of U.P.
amended the cut off date as prescribed under
rule 4 of the Regularization Rules 1996 by
means of Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department
(Amendment) Rules, 2008 and the cut off date
mentioned in rule 4 of 1996 Rules was
replaced by 30.06.1998. The said amendment
Rules 2008 were notified on 05.05.2008.

13. Both the aforesaid rules clearly
provide that all such Part Time Tube-Well
Operators appointed before the cut off
date and continuing as such on the date of
promulgation of said rules, shall be
eligible for regularization.

14. The admitted position in the
aforesaid case is that:-

(i)The petitioners were sent for training
by means of order dated 25.05.2006
(Annexure No. 5) and after successful
completion of training they were to be placed
in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4950 from the
date of their joining.

(ii) The petitioners have completed their
training and were consequently appointed in
2006 and thus it is apparent that none of the
petitioners were either appointed nor have
worked as Part Time Tube-Well Operators
on or before the cut off date i.e. 30.06.1998.

15. So, the order dated 21.04.2009
(Annexure No. 11) passed by O.P. No. 2,
rejecting the claim of the petitioners for
regularization is perfectly valid rather in
accordance with law as laid down by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others
[2006 (4) SCC 1, for the said purpose he
placed reliance in paragraph Nos. 43 and
45
of
the
said
judgment,
quoted
hereinbelow:-

"Para No. 43 - Normally, what is
sought for by such temporary employees
when they approach the court, is the issue
of a writ of mandamus directing the
employer, the State or its instrumentalities,
to absorb them in permanent service or to
allow them to continue. In this context, the
question arises whether a mandamus could
be issued in favour of such persons. At this
juncture, it will be proper to refer to the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs.
The Governing Body of the Nalanda
College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That
case arose out of a refusal to promote the
writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a
college. This Court held that in order that a
mandamus may issue to compel the
authorities to do something, it must be
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
shown that the statute imposes a legal duty
on the authority and the aggrieved party
had a legal right under the statute or rule to
enforce it. This classical position continues
and a mandamus could not be issued in
favour of the employees directing the
government to make them permanent since
the employees cannot show that they have
an
enforceable
legal
right
to
be
permanently absorbed or that the State has
a legal duty to make them permanent.

Para No. 45 - It is also clarified that
those decisions which run counter to the
principle settled in this decision, or in
which directions running counter to what
we have held herein, will stand denuded
of their status as precedents."

16. In view of the abovesaid facts, it is
requested by learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel that the present writ
petition filed by the petitioners lacks merit,
liable to be dismissed.

17. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and gone through the record.

18. Admitted facts of the case are that
on 07.12.1993, an advertizement was
issued/published for selection/appointment
on the post of Assistant Tube Well
Operator. In the said advertizement, it was
provided that after qualifying written
examination the incumbent would be sent
for one month training without pay and after
completion of successful training and
passing the consequential test, the final
appointment order would be issued.

19. In pursuance to the same, the
petitioners submitted their candidature
thereafter,
appeared
in
written
and
interview test in which they passed
successfully and on 09.09.1994, a select
list was issued for appointment on the
post in which the names of the petitioners
find place.

20. However, due to litigation which
had taken place in the matter in question,
as stated in the year 2005-2006, the
petitioners were appointed on the post in
question. Thereafter, they submitted their
grievance for regularization of their
services in view of the Uttra Pradesh
Irrigation Department Regularization of
Part Time Tube-Well Operators on the
post of Tube-Well Operators Rules 1996,
which has been amended in the year 1998
by means of known as Uttar Pradesh
Irrigation
Department
(Amendment)
Rules 1998 by which Rule 4 of 1996 as
amended reads as under:-

"(1) Any person who:-

(i) was appointed on the post of PartTime Tube-Well Operator before June 30,
1998 and is continuing in service, as such,
on the date of the commencement of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Irrigation
Department
Regularisation of Part-Time Tube-Well,
Operators on the post of Tub-Well
Operators (First Amendment Rules, 2008."

21. From the reading of Rule 4 of
the
Regularization
Rules,
1996
as
amended
for
the
purpose
of
Regularization on the post in question, the
following
two
conditions
must
be
satisfied:-

(a) A person should be appointed on
the post of Part-Time Tube-Well Operator
before 30 June, 1998.

(b) He is continuing in service, as
such on the date of the commencement of
Uttra
Pradesh
Irrigation
Department
Regularization of Part-Time Tube-Well
2 All] Surya Prakash Tewari And Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
631
Operators on the post of Tube-Well
Operators first amendment Rules, 1998.

22. It is settled position of law that
recruitment/selection,
by
way
of
advertizement or any other mode as
prescribed by the Rule is essential process
which lead to a eventually appointment in
service
that
is
to
say,
the
selection/recruitment
process
and
precedes appointment.

23. Notifying the vacancies inviting
applications, their scrutiny, finalisation of
list of such eligible candidates, thereafter
preliminary test, written and oral tests and
interview are the part of selection process
for appointment on post and after
completing the said exercise, the selection
for
appointment
compete
when
appointment order is issued.

24. Further, the appointment to a
post or office postulates (a) decision by
the competent authority to appoint a
particular person: (b) incorporation of the
said decision in an order of appointment:
and (c) communication of the order of
appointment to the person who is being
appointed. All the three requirements
must be fulfilled for an appointment to be
effective.

25. Appointment is effected by the
employer
through
a
contract
of
employment. As in every contract, so in a
contract of public employment an offer of
appointment to the candidate sought to be
employed and his acceptance of the offer
forms
the
basis
of
appointment.
Appointment is made to a vacancy and in a
post. It is, therefore, made by a positive and
deliberate act of engagement creating a
relationship
between
employer
and
employee. Appoinment is the starting point
of a career in public employment. It confers
a status and ensure all the rights that are
attached to public service, including
confirmation, seniority, promotion, and so
on tenure. (See. Besant Lal Vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1969 P&H 178).

26. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Prafulla Kr. Swain Vs.
Prakash Ch. Misra, JT 1993 (1) SCC
360 held that appointment means an
actual act of posting a person to a
particular office and anything short of it
cannot be construed as appointment.

27. In the case of Ganedra Prasad
Vs. Executive Engineer and others, (Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 34729 of 2007),
this Court by judgment and order dated
02.07.2010 held as under:-

"According to the petitioner he
appeared
in
the
examination
and
interview for selection on the post of Part
time/Assistant Tub-well Operator on
12.5.1994 whereupon vide order dated
27.5.1994 he was declared selected. On
his aforesaid selection he was sent for
training which he completed successfully.
However, he was not permitted to join the
services in view of the judgment and
order of the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court dated 18.5.1994
passed in writ petition no. 3538 of 1992
Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs.,
State of U.P; interim order in Special
Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994 of the
Sate of U.P. arising therefrom; and the
directions
of
the
authorities
dated
4.10.1994 not to appoint any part-time/
Assistant Tube well operators till the
disposal of the Special Leave Petition.

After the dismissal of the special leave
petition on 22.3.1995,
the petitioner
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
represented for issuing appointment letter
but when no action was taken, he preferred
writ petition no. 7003 of 1996 seeking
direction for his appointment. The said writ
petition was disposed of on 22.3.1996 with
the direction to the authorities concern to
decide the representation of the petitioner in
that regard within a time bound period. The
above order was modified on 10.7.1996 and
it was also provided that in deciding the
representation the authorities shall also keep
in mind the decision of the Supreme Court
dated 22.3.1995 dismissing the Special
Leave Petition. The petitioner as such again
represented to the authorities and ultimately
after going through the process of initiation
of contempt proceedings, final order was
passed on 24.9.1997 by the respondent no. 2
rejecting the petitioner's claim. When the
said order was brought to the notice of the
contempt Court in contempt petition no.
1503 of 1997, the Court vide order
20.4.2001 held that the aforesaid order dated
24.9.1997 can not be treated as an order
passed in compliance of the order of the
High Court. In such a situation, the
petitioner
again
submitted
a
fresh
representation for giving him appointment
which was rejected vide order dated
3/4.10.2002. However, the said order was set
aside by the High Court in writ petition no.
50610 of 2002 of the petitioner on 10.4.2007
and the matter was remitted to the
authorities concerned to reconsider the
same. It is thereafter that on the fresh
representation of the petitioner, one of the
impugned orders dated 27.6.2007 rejecting
the claim/representation of the petitioner has
been passed. A fresh order was passed by the
respondent no. 1 on 29.11.2008 refusing the
claim of the petitioner and other similarly
situated persons for appointment as Part
time/Assistant
Tub-well
Operator
in
pursuance to the selection of the year 1994
on the ground that the aforesaid posts have
been declared to be a dying cadre."

28. In the said matter, it has been
further held as under:-

"To conclude the claim of the
petitioner for appointment as prayed for
can not be accepted in short for the
following reasons:-

(1)Petitioner
was
never
finally
selected for appointment as he had not
undergone and qualified the practical
examination as provided under Rule 14 of
the Rules;

(2)There are no cadre posts of part
time/Assistant Tube-well Operators under
the Rules and the posts of Part
time/Assistant
Tube-well
Operators
temporarily created were declared dead
and have not been revived;

(3)The petitioner has not been
discriminated as he was never allowed to
function in pursuance to his alleged
selection
and
even
otherwise
any
irregular or illegal appointment, would
not permit the petitioner to take shelter of
Article 14 of the Constitution and to seek
appointment on the basis of parity with
the alleged wrong appointment;

(4)Selection alone, if any, does not
give any right for appointment; and

(5)There is no justification for giving
appointment to the petitioner at such a
long distance of time on the basis of
selection of the year 1992.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the respondent no. 1 has
committed no error of law in rejecting the
petitioner's claim for appointment of Part
time/ Assistant Tube-well Operator on the
2 All] Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others
633
basis of alleged selection of the year
1994."

29. In the instant case, although, the
petitioners were selected for appointment on
the post in question and their names find
place in the select list published on
09.09.1994 but the order for appointment on
the post in question has been issued in the
year 2005-2006 after completing all the
necessary formalities, so their actual date of
appointment in the Department is the date on
which they were appointed on the post in
question (i.e. in the year 2005-2006) and not
09.09.1994, when the select list was
published. Hence, the petitioners were not
appointed on the post of part time Tube Well
Operators before 30, June, 1998, as per the
rule 4 of Regularization Rules 1996. Thus,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order dated 21.04.2004 passed by
Engineer in Chief and the petitioner cannot
claim any benefit from the letter/order dated
17.03.2005 or on the basis of the argument
advanced on their behalf in view of the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Indra Kumar Singh (Supra). So, the same
is
not
applicable
in
the
facts
and
circumstance of the present case.

30. In the result, writ petition lacks
merit and is dismissed as the same is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA-II,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8983 of 2012
Alongwith

W.P. No. 8983/2012; W.P. No. 7786 of
2012, W.P. No. 4749 of 2012, W.P.
No.4747 of 2012, W.P. No. 4744 of 2012,
W.P. No.4742 of 2012, W.P. No.2097 of
2012 , W.P. No.72929 of 2011, W.P. No.
62127 of 2011, W.P. No.47694 of 2011,
W.P. No.8978 of 2012, W.P. No.40109 of
2012, W.P. No.26263 of 2010 , W.P.
No.27034 of 2010, W.P. No.8982 of 2012,
W.P. No.45593 of 2010, W.P. No.39835 of
2010, W.P. No. 27035 of 2010 , W.P.
No.36079 of 2011, W.P. No.33230 of 2011,
W.P. No.23460 of 2011, W.P. No.42419 of
2011, W.P. No. 41660 of 2011, W.P. No.
41658 of 2011, W.P. No.39114 of 2011,
W.P. No. 25048 of 2012, W.P. No. 29064 of
2012, W.P. No. 29067 of 2012, W.P.
No.29068 of 2012, W.P. No.29133 of 2012,
W.P. No. 29339 of 2012, W.P. No.37906 of
2012, W.P. No.44259 of 2012, W.P.
No.44261 of 2012, W.P. No.44264 of 2012,
W.P. No. 53736 of 2012, W.P. No.53737 of
2012, W.P. No. 53741 of 2012, W.P.
No.55877 of 2012, W.P. No.55880 of 2012 ,
W.P. No.55885 of 2012 W.P. No.55886 of
2012, W.P. No. 57828 of 2012 W.P. No.
63422 of 2012, W.P. No.63424 of 2012,
W.P. No. 63425 of 2012 W.P. No. 63427 of
2012, W.P. No.67104 of 2012, W.P.
No.67106 of 2012, W.P. No.67109 of 2012,
W.P. No. 67110 of 2012 , W.P. No.67112 of
2012, W.P. No.10150 of 2010, W.P. No.
13847 of 2009, W.P. No.48469 of 2009 ,
W.P. No.32782 of 2011, W.P. No. 32787 of
2011, W.P. No.39212 of 2010, W.P.
No.35429 of 2009 , W.P. No.34028 of
2009, W.P. No.38257 of 2011

Ram Singh and Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation)Act 1976Section 10(5)- Possession of surplus landsymbolic possession is no possession-unless
notice in writing served-notice against dead
person-or change in revenue entry-without