STATE OF U P Vs. RAGHU RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned standing counsel for the petitioner State. In spite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No. 1.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS for determination of surplus land with the respondent No. 1 if any were initiated against him under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Initially the Prescribed Authority held that 48.66 acres of land was surplus with the original respondent No. 1 in terms of irrigated land as was mentioned in the notice. Against the said order appeal was filed which was decided along with two other appeals by the District Judge by a common judgment dated 2.3.1978. After deciding some points finally, the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus area. The judgment of the appellate Court was affirmed by this Court.

(3.) THE appellate Court held that if in the earlier orders some land had wrongly been treated to be irrigated while in fact it was un-irrigated then the error could be corrected under Section 13-A of the Act. Section 13-A of the Ceiling Act deals only with correction of arithmetical or clerical errors. It does not confer any power of review. Normally in ceiling proceedings the question whether a particular plot is irrigated or un-irrigated is subject matter of a raging dispute. Similar was the position in the instant case. THE matter had been decided by the appellate Court in its earlier order dated 2.3.1978 which had been affirmed by this Court by dismissing the Writ Petition No. 4721 of 1978. It was therefore not possible or permissible for the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Court to reconsider the question of nature of land being irrigated or un-irrigated.