The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, a tenure holder has no right to revise their choice of surplus land after the proceedings have become final, and the Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction to re-examine such matters.

Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) rejecting the application of the petitioner for revising choice of the surplus land.

3. In the ceiling proceeding initiated against Vijai Shankar Tripathi, (husband of the petitioner) Prescribed Authority by order dated 29.06.1976 declared an area of 10-13-7 bigha as surplus land. Vijai Shankar Tripathi, (husband of the petitioner) voluntarily gave choice on 24.06.1976 of surplus land in which plot no.285/1 (area 4 biswa 15 dhur) also was included. The Prescribed Authority accepted surplus land by order dated 29.6.1976. This order was not challenged by Vijai Shankar Tripathi or any one else. Subsequently, the land in dispute was allotted to respondent-3 on 01.07.1986. It may be mentioned that the village was under consolidation operation and name of respondent-3 was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 01.04.1989. Thereafter, the proceeding has been taken by the petitioner for cancellation of patta but patta has been upheld by the order of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, dated 26.09.1998.

4. The petitioner then moved an application on 30.10.1998 before the Prescribed Authority for revising choice of the surplus land and has stated that plot no. 285/1 was purchased by her in her own name. She had no notice of the ceiling proceeding against her husband. Her husband has illegally gave choice of surplus land in respect of he land in dispute. In place of the land in dispute, her other plot be taken as surplus land. Prescribed Authority, by order dated 02.11.1998, allowed the application of the petitioner. Sukumari Devi (respondent-3) filed an application for recall of the order dated 02.11.1998, which was rejected by Prescribed Authority by order dated 11.02.2003 on the ground that she had no locus standi to file recall application. Sukumari Devi filed Writ-C No. 11270 of 2003 against the aforesaid order which was allowed by this Court by order dated 24.05.2004 and this Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be heard. The matter was remanded to Prescribed Authority to consider the recall application of the petitioner on merit.

5. After remand, Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 04.12.2013, found that Vijai Shankar Tripathi (husband of the petitioner) voluntarily had given choice of surplus land on 24.06.1976 in which plot no.285/1 (area 4 biswa 15 dhur) was included. The order of Prescribed Authority dated 29.06.1976 was not challenged by any party. Possession over the surplus land was already taken and it was allotted to Sukumari Devi in the year 1986. Although tahsil authorities have reported that file relating to patta was not available but original patta has been filed by Sukumari Devi. Her name was also mutated on its basis by order dated 01.04.1999. He had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the patta. There is no justification to permit the tenure holder to revise choice after 22 years of finalization of the proceedings. On these findings the application of the petitioner has been rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submit tahsil authorities reported that file relating to patta was not available as such granting patta to respondent-3 of the land in dispute was not proved. In the alleged patta dated 01.07.1986, plots 285 and 300/2 were allotted to Sukumari Devi. New number of plot 300/2 was allotted as 189 during consolidation, which is a talab land recorded in the name of Shakti Kumar and others. Thus it is proved that alleged patta produced by respondent-3 is a forged document. Possession over the disputed land was not taken as such the petitioner has