Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned standing counsel for the petitioner State. In spite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No. 1.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS for determination of surplus land with the respondent No. 1 if any were initiated against him under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Initially the Prescribed Authority held that 48.66 acres of land was surplus with the original respondent No. 1 in terms of irrigated land as was mentioned in the notice. Against the said order appeal was filed which was decided along with two other appeals by the District Judge by a common judgment dated 2.3.1978. After deciding some points finally, the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus area. The judgment of the appellate Court was affirmed by this Court. Thereafter original respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 13-A of the Ceiling Act before the Prescribed Authority. According to the petitioner State some of the points which were taken in the said application had already been finally decided by the remand order dated 2.3.1978 passed by the appellate Court. Ultimately Prescribed Authority decided the matter through order dated 23.5.1985 declaring only 2.47 acres of land in terms of irrigated land as surplus with the original respondent No. 1. Against the said order the original respondent No. 1 again filed appeal in the form of Appeal No. 62/247/46 of 1985-86. Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi again allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority with certain directions through judgment and order dated 11.7.1986 which has been challenged through this writ petition. Prescribed Authority/ S.D.O. Konch, District Jalaun through order dated 23.5.1985 passed in Case No. 462 had granted benefit of deduction in area during consolidation proceedings to the petitioner, however in respect of the points regarding irrigated/ un-irrigated nature of certain plots was refused to be considered by the Prescribed Authority as the same had already been finalised by the earlier judgment of the appellate Court dated 2.3.1978.
(3.) THE appellate Court held that if in the earlier orders some land had wrongly been treated to be irrigated while in fact it was un-irrigated then the error could be corrected under Section 13-A of the Act. Section 13-A of the Ceiling Act deals only with correction of arithmetical or clerical errors. It does not confer any power of review. Normally in ceiling proceedings the question whether a particular plot is irrigated or un-irrigated is subject matter of a raging dispute. Similar was the position in the instant case. THE matter had been decided by the appellate Court in its earlier order dated 2.3.1978 which had been affirmed by this Court by dismissing the Writ Petition No. 4721 of 1978. It was therefore not possible or permissible for the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Court to reconsider the question of nature of land being irrigated or un-irrigated. The impugned order is therefore utterly erroneous in law. No other point was argued before the appellate Court. Accordingly, there is no need to remand the matter to appellate Court. Writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 11.7.1986 is set aside. Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 23.5.1985 is approved and restored.;