Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the older dated 20th May, 1992, passed by Prescribed Authority, the order dated 20th June, 1993, affirming the said order passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 24th September, 1993, rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2oth June, 1993.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that; a notice dated 5-11-1974 was issued to the petitioner under section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determining surplus area. In the notice, 90 bighas 8 biswas were shown as irrigated land, 21 bighas 16 biswas as unirrigated land, 24 bighas 2 biswas as grove land and 2 bighas as 'Usar' Land-total 115 bighas 8 biswas in terms of Irrigated land were shown as holdings of the petitioner and it was proposed In the notice as to why 34 bighas of land in excess of ceiling area be not declared as surplus. THE petitioner filed an objection which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 51/8 of 1974-75. In the mean-time, another notice dated 24-9-1975 under section 10 (2) of the Act was Issued to the petitioner. In this notice, 93 bighas 18 biswas irrigated land. 23 bighas 16 biswas unirrigated land and 14 bighas 2 biswas grove land were shown as holdings of the petitioner. This was calculated as 115 bighas 8 biswas irrigated land. The petitioner filed objections to this notice also. It appears that this case was also registered as Ceiling Case No, 51/8, of 1974-75. Proceedings, however, in both the notices were taken separately and both the cases were not consolidated, with the result that separate orders were being passed in both the proceedings. The Prescribed Authority declared 32 bighas as surplus land of the petitioner on the basis of the proceedings initiated on the first notice. The petitioner filed Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 against the said order. Proceedings, which were initiated on the basis of the second notice, were taken up by the Prescribed Authority and in those proceedings the land of the petitioner was declared as 8 bighas 10 biswas by order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6th March, 1976. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976. This appeal was dismissed on 20th September, 1976, by Civil Judge, Nainital. The petitioner did not prefer any writ petition against the said order and that order became final.
(3.) THE appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27th February, 1975, i.e. Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975, came up for consideration before the Third Additional District Judge, Nainital, and the said appeal was allowed on 21st May, 1977, holding that the petitioner has no surplus land. Before the appellate court, none of the parties pointed out that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6th March, 1976, which was based on the second notice, had already been dismissed on 20th September, 1976. It appears that the State also did not prefer any writ petition esgainst the said order and that also became final. The State proceeded to take possession of 8 bighas 10 biswas land as surplus on the basis of the order dated 6th March; 1976. passed by the Prescribed Authority, as affirmed in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 on 20th September, 1976, by the appellate authority. The petitioner filed an application purporting to be review application before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital, under section 13-A of the Act. It was registered as Case No. 9/26 of 1985-86. It was pointed out before the Additional Commissioner that there were two conflicting orders of two different appellate authorities-one passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 (arising out of proceedings on the basis of first notice) and another order of the appellate authority dated 20th September, 1976, passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 (arising out of second notice) and both are inconsistent. The Additional Commissioner, without setting aside the order dated 20th September, 1976* passed in Celling Appeal No. 168 of 1975 directed the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 12th March, 1991, to make enquiry in the matter to find out true position after summoning records of both the cases which were initiated on the basis of first notice as well as second notice.;