M. Katju, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31-1-1994 by which the second review application of the State Govern ment has been allowed. In this case on 17-5-1994 the learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Again on 17-8-1994 one month's time was again granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file the counter- affidavit but yet no counter affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances, I am presuming the allegations in the petition to be correct and I am disposing of the petition finally. 2. The writ petition relates to proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners were served notices under Section 10 (2) of the Act proposing to declare surplus land. The filed objections to the same and therafter the prescribed Authority passed an order dated 22-2-1979 declaring 41 bigaha 15 biswas and 4 dhoor (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) land as surplus. No appeal was filed against this order as stated in para 2 of the writ petition. However, on 15-1- 1982 the petitioners received another notice (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). This notice was replied by filing an objection on 18-6-1982 stating that they had no surplus land and that by earlier order dated 22-2-1979 some land of their have already been declared surplus. True copy of then-objection is Annexure 4-A to the writ petition. However, by order dated 31-3-1984 the Prescribed Authority declared 90 bighas 1 biswa 7 dhoor as surplus vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Against the order dated 31-1- 84 the petitioner No. 1 filed an Appeal No. 251 and the petitioner No. 2 filed an Appeal No. 286. These appeals were decided by a common order by the Additional Commissioner, Al lahabad vide order dated 29. 7. 1986, true copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Additional Commissioner allowed the petitioners appeal holding that the second notice dated 15-1-1982 was illegal since the order dated 22-2-1979 had become final. This order dated 29-7-1986 was not challenged by means of a writ petition but instead the State Govern ment filed a review application on 15-7-1987 Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This review application was rejected by order dated 5-12-1987 holding that this review application is not maintainable. This order dated 5-12-1987 was not challenged before this Court by means of a writ petition. However, the State Government again on 17-3-1992 filed a second review application, a true copy of which is Annexure- 10 to the writ petition. This review application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31-1-1984, vide Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. 3. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed in this Court. 4. It is settled law that a review is a creature of the Statute and normally there is no inherent power of review in the Court or authority. Section 13-A no doubt gives power to the Prescribed Authority to rectify any mistake apparent from the fact of the record but this power is only given to the prescribed Authority and not to the Commissioner. Hence, in my opinion the Commissioner has no power of review. It is no doubt true that review is a creature of the statue and ordinary there is no inherent power of review yet in exceptional circumstances every Court has no inherent power of review e. g. when the order was passed without issuing notice to the party, or is obtained by fraud etc. However, this at best could give one right of review and that right has already been exhausted when the first application of the State Government was rejected on 5-12-1987 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Even assuming that one review is allowed under inherent power of the Court in some exceptional circumstances, there is certainly no power of second review. Hence, the second review applica tion in my opinion was not maintainable. 5. In view of this the impugned order dated 31-1-1984 is hereby declared illegal and is quashed. 6. Before parting with this case I would like to make a recommendation to the State Government to initiate an amend ment of the law so as to increase the ceiling limit in rural areas in respect of farmers who do farming by modern methods using machinery. At present the ceiling limit is prescribed in Section 5 (3) of the Act which is 7,530 hectares of irrigated land for a family of not more than five members and two additional hectares for each adult son. In my opinion if agricultural production in this country is to be increased there has to be permitted large holdings for farmers who use modern machinery like tractor, harvester, combine etc. This is because modern scientific farming cannot be done on small holdings. Modern farming by scientific methods is a capital intensive industry, and requires a large initial outlay. Proper utilization of tractors, harvesters, com bines etc. cannot be done on small hold ings. In this respect the ceiling law appears to be defective and needs to be amended. While the Act differentiates between ir rigated land and unirrigated land, it does not differentiate between land which is farmed by the old methods of manual or animal labour using (bullocks etc) and land is farmed by modern scientific methods using machinery e. g. tractor, combine etc. If we wish that food produc tion should increase in our country we must understand the nature of modern scientific agriculture, and not resort to populist measures which are really short sighted. In all western countries farming is done on large holdings using modern scientific methods, and the result is that the production is 10 times or more than ours. Hence, the sooner we realise our mistake the better. 7. I, therefore, recommend that the ceiling Act be amended and for farmers who do farming by modern methods using machinery, etc. the ceiling limit be raised to at least 100 pucca bighas. 8. With these observations the writ petition is allowed. Let the Registrar of this Court send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary and Agriculture Secretary, U. P. Govt. Petition allowed. .;