ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1960) were initiated against the recorded tenure holder (Mohar Singh) culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.03.1980 whereunder it was held that the petitioner had 4.45 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Not being satisfied the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. The appeal was decided under an order dated 30.09.1980. Operative portion of the order is being quoted herein below : “The appeal is hereby partly allowed and the case is being sent back to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that he will recalculate the ceiling and surplus area applicable to the tenure holder in the light of the finding or observation made above in the body of this judgment. He need not hold an enquiry into the matter. His job will be only to work out the surplus area if any in the light of the finding of this Court. None of the parties shall be entitled to hearing him him but it shall be opened to the Prescribed Authority to take their help if necessary in calcuation. I make no order as to cost. Let the matter be sent back to the Prescribed Authority for expeditious disposal of the matter according to law.”
(2.) THIS order was permitted to become final by the petitione. On remand the Prescribed Authority has carried out the directions issued by the Appellate Court and re-calculated the ceiling limits of the writ petitioners vide order dated 30.04.1986. It has been calculated that the petitioner had 1.89 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Against this calculation, petitioner filed Appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960 being Appeal No. 26/2/92/246 of 1985-86. The appeal has been dismissed under the order dated 28.06.1989. Hence this petition. The Appellate Authority has held that under the order of remand of the Appellate Court dated 30.04.1986, only re-calculation of the ceiling limits in light of various observations made was required to be done. The tenure holder was not be heard, meaning thereby only calculation was to be done and no other ground could be permitted to be raised before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority was permitted the help, if necessary, for the purposes of calculation only. Admittedly the remand order was not subjected to any further challenge.
(3.) I am of the considered opinion that the orders impugned are as per the law. It is not permissible to the petitioner to raise any other issue except for the purposes of pointing out that the calculation done by the Prescribed Authority is factually incorrect.;