Re-initiation of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 can only occur under specific circumstances as stated in the Act.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri R.P. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The moot question which has arisen for consideration before this Court in the present writ petition is as to whether the proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) can be commenced once on previous occasion the land has already been declared surplus.

3. In the present case, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to the petitioner i.e. Raj Bahadur Singh on 24.1.1985. The petitioner had submitted his objections. He submitted that on previous occasion also notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1960 was issued to him and the order was passed by the prescribed authority on 5.2.1977 and certain portion of his land was declared surplus which had become final. Consequently second notice in this regard cannot be issued to him.

4. The prescribed authority rejected his objections and categorically stated that second notice can be issued to him. He also recorded the fact that various sale deeds have been executed by the original tenure holder.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority where also the petitioner contended that the proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority were without jurisdiction as on previous occasion ceiling proceedings had already been concluded and had become final and certain portion of his land has already been declared to be surplus. The appellate authority also by means of his order dated 31.7.1996 rejected the contentions of the petitioner merely reaffirming the order of the prescribed authority stating that ceiling proceedings can be commenced even if they have been concluded.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ceiling proceedings in the present case could not have been commenced after their conclusion on previous occasion by means of order dated 5.2.1977. He submits that neither was there any rectification or error in the previous proceedings which required any correction in exercise of the powers under Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1960. Even if that is required, the same can be done within two years from the date of notification. Present proceedings have been initiated after expiry of more than nine years and consequently in any view of the matter the said proceedings were illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that under Section 29 of the Act of 1960 the proceedings can be re-initiated only when some other land has come into the hands of the original holder or nature of the land has changed from un-irrigated to irrigated. Neither the aforesaid fact exists in the present case nor has any such situation which has been mentioned or considered either by the prescribed authority or appellate authority and, hence such exercise of power is arbitrary and not envisaged under the Act of 1960.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and supported both the impugned orders. He submits that there is provision under Section 31 for re-determination of land which has been previously declared surplus but could not demonstrate that the conditions prescribed in Section 31 of the Act of 1960 exists in the present case.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. We have also perused the order dated 5.2.1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority in remand proceedings where on the previous occasion the same land was subjected to ceiling operations and the Prescribed Authority was directed to consider as to whether the land was a grove and also in case the said land is excluded, the remaining land would be within the ceiling limits or otherwise. The Prescribed Authority has finalized the proceedings by passing order on 5.2.1977. Once the proceedings