Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The controversy can be decided without going into the details of the case. However, it may be stated that the tenure holder was earlier proceeded against in the ceiling proceedings and the prescribed Authority passed his order on 31.10.1974 declaring 54.24 acres of irrigated land as surplus area. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter an order was passed under Section 13A purporting to rectify certain errors which were stated to be apparent on the face of the record. The errors related to the correction of certain figures. A true copy of the said order dated 27.4.1976 is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, a fresh notice under Section (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 14th February, 1978. Apparently this fresh notice was issued in view of the amendments in the Ceiling Act which had been effected by the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1976, (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976.) The petitioner filed his objections and the Prescribed Authority decided the same by his order dated 16.9.1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 3 to the petition. An area of 16.71 acres of irrigated land was additionally declared as surplus land. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was partly allowed by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 18.11.1980, a true copy of which is Annexure 4 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof. I have heard Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing counsel has made his submissions.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, which had been issued to the petitioner was time barred under Section 31(3) of the aforesaid Amendment Act (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976). Section 31 of the said Act is described as transitory provision. Sub -section 3 of the said section is as follows: Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure holder has been made under the Principle Act before the tenth day of October 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may, at any time within a period of two years from the said date, redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land. It is not necessary to go into question whether the expression 'two years from the said date' should be interpreted as two years from 10th October, 1975 or from the date of the order of the Prescribed authority because, in the instant case, since two years had elapsed computing the same from 10th October, 1975, therefore, much more than a period of two years elapsed from the date of the Prescribed authority's order which as stated above, was passed on 31st October, 1975. Indeed, in a case where the fresh notice is issued after more than 2 years from the 10th October, 1975, then the notice is bound to be hit by the rule of limitation because the date of the Prescribed authority's order must be earlier than 10th October, 1975 otherwise Section 31(3) itself will not be attracted. As stated above, the second notice was issued on 14th November, 1978 which is more than two years from the 10th October, 1975. Accordingly, it must be held that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the said notice and the entire subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 16.9.1978 Annexure 3 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the judgment dated 18.11.1980 Annexure 4 passed by the appellate court are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. ;