SWAMI PRASAD Vs. A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the judgment of appellate authority and that of the prescribed authority dated 14.10.1982 and 11,6.11981 (Annexures-3 and 2) respectively.

(2.) Proceedings are under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Pursuant to the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, objection came from the side of petitioner challenging correctness of the statement as appeared in the notice. After the objection and evidence, prescribed authority by its order dated 23.6.1976 declared an area of 8.23 acres of land as surplus, upon which the petitioner filed appeal in which by the judgment of the appellate authority dated 25.7.1977, surplus area was reduced and an area of 4.37 acres was declared as surplus. The petitioner came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3564 of 1977 which was allowed and the matter was remanded by order of this Court dated 12.1.1979 for a fresh decision by appellate court. After the remand, appellate court by its judgment dated 14.7.1980 declared an area of 3.71 acres of land as surplus and an option was given to the petitioner to give his choice. Instead of giving choice, petitioner appears to have moved application before the prescribed authority purported to be under Section 13A of the Act with the prayer that declaration of land as surplus be reviewed and recalled as there has been some reduction in the consolidation operation. The prescribed authority rejected petitioner's application by order dated 11.6.1981 and thereafter, appeal filed by petitioner also failed as the appeal was dismissed by appellate authority by its order dated 14.10.1982 and thus against both judgments, this writ petition is before this Court.

(3.) The only submission which has been advanced by learned Counsel during course of argument is that the prescribed authority in rejecting petitioner's application for re-considering the declaration of surplus land on the ground that it will amount to review of earlier order, has committed an error as according to the argument, Section 13A of the Act gives wide powers to the prescribed authority for rectification of any kind of mistake and thus application of petitioner was liable to be dealt on merits. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision given in the case of Ompal Singh 1996 (2) AWC 2.103 (Summary of Cases).