- (1.) A notice under S. 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as amended by Act of 1972 ended in its discharge by the Appellate Court on 24th December 1974. Similar notice under S. 10 (2) was issued on 30th Sept. 1975 which was hotly contested both on the ground of jurisdiction and merits but with no success, even, in appeal. This petition is directed against the order dated 28th Oct. 1976 and 30th June 1976 passed by the Appellate Court and the prescribed Authority in proceedings started by the second notice dated 30th Sept. 1975.
(2.) THE challenge to the order is based on non-applicability of S. 13-A of the Act conclusiveness of the earlier judgment and lack of jurisdiction of the prescribed Authority. THE dispute in this petition is mainly confined to the area of the petitioner declared surplus by the subordinate authorities on the ground that it was covered by a sale-deed executed on 29th Dec. 1971. This was not in the knowledge of the authorities when proceedings were taken earlier under S. 10 (2). The notice dated 30th Sept. 1975 points out omission on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing complete details in response to a notice published under S. 9. By Act XVIII of 1973 sub-s. (2) was added to S. 9. In the manner contemplated in S. 9 this sub-section also casts an obligation on a tenure holder to furnish details of land in excess of ceiling area after publication of general notice in the official Gazette, Sections 4, 4A, 5 and 6 lay down the method of determination, calculation and exemption. The tenure holder while submitting the return has to look into the provisions of the Act and submit the return under S. 9. In case the prescribed Authority finds that the return is incomplete or incorrect he is empowered to issue notice under S. 10 (1). Where the details are not furnished correctly and it escapes notice under S. 10 the prescribed Authority can in the exercise of power under S. 13-A issue notice to rectification of such mistake. It cannot therefore be urged that once proceedings under Ss. 9 and 10 have been taken Prescribed Authority is debarred from proceeding to rectify the mistake as the entire record being available with the Prescribed Authority it cannot be said that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record.
(3.) THE question then is twofold whether notice dated 30th Sept. 1975 issued under S. 10 (2) was a notice in exercise of powers under S. 13A. If so whether on the facts there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. That the notice was issued under S. 10 (2) cannot be disputed. It is clear from the contents that it was issued on the basis that the return filed by the petitioner was incomplete or incorrect. It did not point out any mistake which necessitated the Prescribed Authority to issue this notice. The petitioner on the other hand was required to file objection as contemplated under S. 10 (2) to the statement which indicated surplus area, chart of which was attached with the notice. The scope of S. 10 (2) and Section 13A is entirely different. It cannot be said that one overlaps the other. The power has to be exercised in different circumstances on different set of facts. It is true that merely because the notice is stated to be under Section 10 (2) does not mean that the Prescribed Authority was debarred from proceeding under S. 13A. It is not the mention of a wrong section but the subject-matter of the notice which makes the entire difference. On the facts stated in the notice it cannot be considered as initiation of proceedings for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record.;