Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.10.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) in Case No. 1 of 1993-1994 (State of U.P. v. Karan Singh) and also the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur rejecting the Appeal No. 1 of 2007-2008.

2. The facts necessary for decision of the controversy are as follows :

3. A notice dated 31.1.1975 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ceiling Act’) was issued to the father of the petitioner, namely Karan Singh. Karan Singh filed his objections. Thereafter Case No. 460-A/1974 was registered and after hearing the parties, six issues were framed, and then the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar by order dated 3.6.1975 set aside the notice dated 31.1.1975 and held in favour of Karan Singh that out of 85 Bighas 17 Biswas and 2 Biswansi of land of his original holding 25 Bighas 17 Biswas and 10 Biswansi was unirrigated. Thus, the same was liable to be ignored. The total holding of Karan Singh was reduced to 59 Bighas 19 Biswa and 12 Biswansi. There were two major sons and at that time the ceiling limit was 64 Bighas 17 Biswas and 12 Biswansi. Therefore, the land of Karan Singh was held to be within the Ceiling limit. No Appeal was filed against this order by the State and it was allowed to attain finality.

4. All of a sudden two notices were issued on 10.8.1983 saying that prima facie determination had been made on surplus land held by Karan Singh and his son - Mukesh Kumar of land held by them as on 8.6.1973 being surplus, objections were invited. Karan Singh as well as petitioner No. 1 - Mukesh Kumar filed their objections mentioning that on 3.7.1975 notice under Section 10(2) of the Act had been discharged and after passing of the aforesaid order dated 3.7.1975, no land had been additionally secured by the petitioner and also that the land of the petitioner had been reduced in Consolidation proceedings and that the petitioners were members of joint Hindu family and petitioner No. 1 - Mukesh Kumar having been born before the Abolition of Zamindari, he had half of a share over the land in dispute and half the share had been obtained by petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 as coparcenary land. There was no surplus land with the petitioner. The objections dated 10.11.1993 alongwith affidavit dated 28.6.1995 filed by Karan Singh, and the objection dated 10.7.1995 filed by the petitioner No. 1 have all been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

5. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 3 without looking into such objections passed an order dated 30.7.1997 declaring 1.7540 hectare of land as surplus giving benefit to the father of the petitioner of only two major sons under Section 5(3) of the Act. On 20.11.1995, the respondent No. 3 declared plot No. 282/2 and 278 having area 1.7540 hectare of land as surplus.

6. The petitioners being aggrieved filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 12.2.1996 on the ground of alternative remedy. They filed an Appeal thereafter under Section 13 of the Act which was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Court by observing that the writ petition was dismissed on 12.2.1996 and the Appeal was filed on 4.4.1996 and there was considerable delay which was unexplained.

7. The writ petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 4683 of 1997 which was allowed by this Court on 23.8.2007, remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision on the application for condonation of delay, with a direction that since the matter was very old, the Appellate Court should decide the same expeditiously on merit. After a photocopy of this Court’s order dated 23.8.2007 was placed before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority considered the Appeal No. 2