Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was issued notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") which was objected by him on the ground that earlier proceedings were initiated and it was decided finally in appeal decided on 21.2.1977. The said appeal was filed by petitioner's father. In respect to the same land, no second proceeding are permissible. The matter was heard and Prescribed Authority by order dated 24.10.1988 revoked the notice upholding the objection of the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that Naib -Tehsildar (Ceiling) moved an application for recall/review for order dated 24.10.19. and the Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 31.12.1990 revoked his order dated 24.10.1988 listing the matter for further hearing. Against the order dated 31.12.1990 petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected by order dated 10.7.1992.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner firstly submitted that the order dated 24.10.1988 was passed after hearing the Naib -Tehsildar (Ceiling) and therefore the submission that the State was not given any opportunity is not correct. Secondly he submitted that there is no provision for review or recall and hence also the impugned order reviewing the order dated 24.10.1988 is wholly perverse and without jurisdiction. He placed reliance on decision of this Court in U.P. Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2003 AWC (1) 145 wherein in para 9 of the judgment, it has said as under: (9). Under the Act, there is no provision of filing a review application. Section 13A of the Act simply provides for an application for rectification of clerical mistake. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded before the appellate authority that there was no mistake in the calculation, thus, the appellate authority was right in holding that the review was legally not maintainable. Learned Standing counsel could not make any substantive argument to pursue this Court to take a different view than what has been held in U.P. Steels Ltd. (supra).
(3.) MOREOVER , from the record, it is evident that the order dated 24.10.1988 was passed after hearing Naib -Tehsildar (Ceiling), therefore, at his instance application for review or recall of the said order, in my view, was wholly misconceived and was not maintainable. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot sustain.;