PRATAP SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act) the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 5th of December, 1975 declared an area of 37 bighas, 19 biswas and 2 Biswansis as surplus land of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application for review of the order purporting to be under Sec. 13-A of the Act. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 16-12-1975 reviewed the earlier order and reduced the surplus area to be 15 bighas, 18 Biswas and 10 Biswansis. The State submitted to the order but the tenure-holder preferred an appeal. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal on the reasoning that the appeal was incompetent as the remedy of the petitioner was to have preferred an appeal against the original order.

(2.) IN my opinion, the view taken by the learned Judge suffers from a manifest error of law. When the Prescribed Authority reviewed his earlier order and granted some relief to the tenure-holder, the earlier order ceased to exist and was substituted by the subsequent order passed on review. It was like coming into force of a new decree in place of the original decree. After review of the original order, it was not open to challenge by way of appeal as it had been substituted by a subsequent order. By the subsequent order there was a fresh determination of the surplus land held by the petitioner. The State Government did not challenge the competence of the Prescribed Authority to review his earlier order and the subsequent order was allowed to become final. The determination of the surplus land by the prescribed Authority reviewing his earlier order was in substance an order passed under Sec. 12 of the Act and was open to appeal u/Sec. 13 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the tenure-holder was competent and the learned Judge erroneously rejected it without entering into the merits of the case.