JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in this writ petition, which arises out of proceedings under the provisions of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the second respondent, the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh, whereby he has rejected an impleadment application filed by the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that ceiling proceedings were drawn against the tenure holder, one Raudan Singh and by order dated 8.6.1976 about 15 bigha of land are stated to have been declared as surplus in his hands. Raudhan Singh is alleged to have executed a Will on 28.12.1981 in favour of his son Karmveer Singh and his three daughters, namely, Meenu Chaudhary, Archana Chaudhary and Vinesh Bala. Raudan Singh died on 13.2.1982 and on his death, only his son Karmveer Singh was ordered to be mutated in his place by means of PA-11 entry.

3. Since, the land in the hands of Karmveer Singh was more than the ceiling limit, a notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued to him.

4. In the meantime, the widow of Raudan Singh filed a mutation case claiming on the basis of the Will dated 28.12.1981. This mutation case was dismissed vide order dated 29.6.1982, against which order, an appeal was preferred. This appeal was allowed by order dated 20.7.1983 directing mutation on the basis of the Will executed by Raudan Singh.

5. Against the order dated 20.7.1983, the Nayab Tehsildar, Ceiling, filed a review application, which was allowed on 25.1.1984 and the order dated 20.7.1983 was set aside. This order has admittedly attained finality. As a consequence, the Will, allegedly executed by Raudhan Singh, stands discarded.

6. Relying upon the mutation order passed on 20.7.1983 in appeal, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 16.5.2012 dropped the ceiling proceeding against Karmveer Singh, despite the fact that the order dated 20.7.1983 had been set aside in review and the mutation case stood dismissed.

7. It appears that against the order dated 16.5.2012 of the Prescribed Authority dropping the ceiling proceedings, the State preferred belated appeal on 3.7.2019. The delay in filing this appeal was condoned.

8. Against the order condoning the delay, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court. The said writ petition No. 24954 of 2019 was allowed and the matter was remanded back for a decision afresh, on the delay condonation application, finding that the delay had been condoned without issuing any notice to the opposite parties in the appeal.

9. The writ petition aforesaid was filed also by the petitioner in this instant writ petition, although, it appears that they were not arrayed as respondents in the appeal nor was required to be so arrayed in view of the fact that they claim on the basis of a registered sale-deed executed by Meenu Chaudhary, Archana Chaudhary and Vinesh Bala dated 24.5.2012.

10. In pursuance of the order of remand dated 6.8.2019 passed in Writ-C No. 24954 of 2019, the section 5 application of the State has again been allowed and the delay in filing of the appeal has been condoned.

11. It is in the aforenoted ceiling appeal that the impleadment application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

12. Contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 is arbitrary and has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that the petitioners were necessarily required to be heard in the matter.

13. It is also sought to be contended that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, relying upon an order passed in summary mutation proceedings, which is not binding upon the parties or the Courts in regular proceedings.

14. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions-

1. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, 1998 (89) RD 18 (SC