U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) The order passed by the District Judge in proceedings arising out of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is subject matter of challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India declaring substantial area of land standing in the name of late Raja Udai Raj Singh as surplus. Rani Laxmi Kuer, separated wife of late Raja Udai Raj Singh filed an appeal before the District Judge which was allowed and the land standing in her) name was excluded for the said purpose. The matter was sent to the Prescribed Authority. Before the Prescribed Authority the petitioner moved an application under Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act alleging that there were several mistakes apparent on the face of the record in the trial court judgment, as such the said mistakes be rectified. One of such mistakes was that although late Raja Udai Raj Singh was entitled for 9.12 hectares of land as ceiling area, but inadvertently he was given only 7.30 hectares of land The question of choice was also raised. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10-10-1977. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge also took the view that an appeal under Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act lies only if a redetermination is made by the Prescribed Authority, but if the same is not done, no appeal lies as it will not be an order under Section 13-A of the Act. But at the same time the District Judge accepted the contention raised by the petitioner that he will have an opportunity to give choice in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-A of the Act. Section 13-A of the Act reads as follows:- Section 13-A: "Redetermination of surplus land in certain cases- (1) The Prescribed Authority may, at any time, within a period of two years from the date of notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14, rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record : Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of increasing the surplus land shall be made, unless the prescribed authority has given notice to the tenure-holder of its intention to do so and has given him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The provisions of Sections 10, 11, 12-A, 13, 14, 15 and 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to any proceeding under sub-section (1), and for purposes of application of Section 10, the notice under the proviso to sub-sec. (1) shall be deemed to be a notice under Section 9." Under the said section the Prescribed Authority has been given power to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act provide for filing appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority with the result that any order passed under Section 13-A becomes an appealable order. Still the question for determination is whether in case an application under Section 13-A can be filed by a tenure-holder and if so in case it is rejected an appeal lies against the said order or in case the same is allowed the appeal lies against the said order in view of Section 13-A (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
(2.) A perusal of Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act makes it clear that it does speak of such redetermination at the instance of the Prescribed Authority, but jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Prescribed Authority to correct the mistake apparent on the face of the record within a period of two years from earlier determination. This can be done even at the instance of tenure-holder affected in case an application in this behalf is moved before the Prescribed Authority. In case the said rectification is to result in increasing the surplus land, it can be made at the instance of the Prescribed Authority. But only after giving notice to the tenure-holder of his intention to do so and giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. A tenure-holder has a right to approach the Prescribed Authority for rectification of the mistake on the face of the record and in case there is refusal by the Prescribed Authority or the Prescribed Authority erroneously takes the view that it is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record, an aggrieved person can approach the appellate authority in view of Section 13-A (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act which applies the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act regarding appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in these matters. Thus 'rectification of any mistake apparent on the face of the record used in Section 13-A also includes refusal to rectify the mistake and such an order is thus an appealable order. The view of law thus taken by the District Judge that there is no right of appeal in case there is refusal to redetermine surplus land or to rectify the mistake apparent on the face of record in redetermining surplus land under Section 13-A is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained.
(3.) The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Judge dated 13-10-1978 (Annexure-3) is quashed and the District Judge is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law obviously after taking into consideration whether the relief claimed by the petitioner was covered under Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;