The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 27(4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, defining the rights of an aggrieved person and the reversion of land to the State Government.

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi senior advocate, assisted by Sri J. B. Mishra, on behalf of the petitioner, standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Sanjay Goswami, Advocate on behalf of the other private respondents.

2. This writ petition was decided by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 6th May, 1996. A Special Appeal No. 5241-5242 of 2003 was filed by Doodh Nath and others (who are respondents in the present writ petition) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the Special Appeal and after setting aside the judgment of this Court, remanded the matter for disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. After objections were filed by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority determined 39.03 Acres of land as surplus. Thereafter the petitioner, along with other persons, filed appeal before the District Judge, which were numbered as 385 of 1977, 396 of 1977 and 397 of 1977. The appeals were decided by the IInd Additional District Judge by means of the orders dated 20.11.1980, 17th March, 1980 and 20.11.1981 respectively. The appellate court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the Prescribed Authority.

4. The Prescribed Authority could not proceed with the matter as the record of the cases were summoned by the appellate court in another appeal Devta v. State of U. P. Ultimately the Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 28.2.1995 re-determined the ceiling limits of the petitioner. By means of the said order, the prescribed Authority maintained that the petitioner had surplus land to the extent of 39.03 acres situate in various villages. The Prescribed Authority, however, under the order dated 28.2.1995 accepted the choice exercised by the petitioner and declared that the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti be left for being used by the petitioner while land of the petitioner situate in other villages may be declared surplus and for that purpose 39.03 acres of land of the petitioner, as per Schedule-Ka appended to the said order, has declared as surplus. It is not in dispute that in the Schedule-Ka the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti is not included.

5. During this period the State Government through Collector, Padrauna (Kushinagar) allotted the surplus land of the petitioner to the persons impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 to 40, which included the land situate in village Siswa Goiti.

6. The petitioners filed an application on 15th April, 1991 under Section 27 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act for cancellation of the patta of the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti. The said application of the petitioner was numbered as Ceiling Case No. 81/D-1991.

7. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the order dated 28.2.1995 referred to above, was passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring that the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti be excluded from the surplus land and land of the petitioner situate in other villages be declared surplus as per Schedule-Ka.

8. The Commissioner by means of the order dated 16th January, 1996 rejected the said application of the petitioner under Section 27 (4) with a finding that the application is not maintainable and the only remedy available to petitioner was to approach the Prescribed Authority. Hence the present writ petition.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition.

10. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Commissioner, rejecting the application of the petitioner as not maintainable under Section 27 (4), is totally misconceived. It is further contended