ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated against the petitioner. It is not necessary for the Court to notice in detail, the proceedings taken in that regard, suffice is to refer to the order of the Writ Court dated 23.4.1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 633 of 1982 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, against the order of the Appellate Authority passed in favour of the present petitioner(recorded tenure holder). The operative portion of the judgement and order read as follows: The writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgements and orders dated 12.12.1980 and 21.10.1981 are quashed. The Prescribed Authority shall determine afresh if the Plot No. 67/5 is irrigated or unirrigated in the light of the observations made above, and shall then decide the surplus land, if any, of the respondent no. 3. In the special circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(2.) THE proceedings were therefore initiated by the Prescribed Authority for the purposes determining as to whether Plot No. 67/5 was irrigated or not. The Prescribed Authority under order dated 12.3.1990 held that Plot No. 67/5 total area 23.06 acres was irrigated and the ceiling limit of the petitioner were accordingly determined. It was specifically recorded that despite notice being issued with an opportunity to lead evidence in support of his claim, the tenure holder did not respond. No evidence was led by him in support of his claim that Plot No. 67/6 was unirrigated. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence led by the State Government found that Plot No. 67/5 was irrigated by a tube well and that in 1380 phasli two crops had been cultivated over the plot in question.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, the tenure holder filed a review application on 10.5.1990. It appears that review application was not pressed as in the mean time. Appeal under section 13 of the Ceiling Act was preferred before Appellate Authority namely the Commissioner. The appeal was presented on 5.7.1990 since the appeal was beyond time the petitioner also made an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected under the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.8.1990 as a consequent thereto the appeal has been dismissed as barred by the limitation.;