Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS and the connected writ petitions are directed against the same order dated 28 -2 -1966. They raise common questions and can be conveniently decided by a common judgment.
(2.) M /s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Respondent No. 2, moved an application dated 5 -2 -1965 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The application was headed Under Section 6 of the Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was stated that the Mills had prior to 1 -7 -1956 held the mentioned plots on a lease and that those plots constituted an agricultural area as defined by Section 2 of the Act. In proceedings for demarcation of the Agricultural areas the aforesaid plots were left out. It prayed that the omission be rectified and effect be given to the provisions of law according to which the areas mentioned are agricultural areas. The matter seems to have been transferred to the Additional Commissioner, who called for a report from the Demarcation Officer, Ghaziabad. Ultimately by the impugned order dated 28 -2 -1966, the Additional Commissioner, the first Respondent, held that the plots constituted agricultural area as defined in the Act and they ought to have been demarcated. He observed that the Demarcation Officer ought to have made enquiries Under Rule 8 in respect of the land in question which was held on lease duly executed prior to 1 -7 -1956 and an entry to that effect ought to have been made in the remarks column of the khasra. He ultimately held that failure to do so is clearly an accidental omission and must be cured Under Section 6 of the Act. This order is challenged on several grounds. It is urged that a notification Under Section 8 of the Act was published on 30 -6 -1962 and that the proceedings could not be reopened after that date by the Additional Commissioner. If at all, the remedy of the Mills was to file an appeal Under Section 5(3) of the Act before the Board of Revenue. In the next place it is stated that Respondent, No. 2 had moved a similar application Under Section 6 of the Act in 1964 but the same was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 14 -5 -1964 and the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise his earlier order. In paragraph 12 of the petition it has been slated that the Mills had moved another application in September 1965 praying that the matter be recommended to the Board of Revenue for correction of the mistake in the demarcation list. This seems to be incorrect because a copy of this application which has been filed as annexure 'V' to the petition is one which was filed by the Modi Industries Ltd. and not by the Petitioner. It is also urged that this was not a case of any clerical or arithmetical error and as such the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of the 2nd Respondent Under Section 6 of the Act.
(3.) THE last point taken is that the document relied upon by the Mills as a lease, is in fact and in law only a license and as such the plots of land covered by it do not constitute Agricultural Area as defined by the Act.;