M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE facts in brief are these :- THE usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner and he filed objections. THE Prescribed Authority partly allowed the said objection and both the petitioner and the State felt aggrieved with the decision of the Prescribed Authority. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the petition that two appeals were filed before the District Judge of Jaunpur, who was the appellate authority against the order of the Prescribed Authority. THE lower appellate court by its order dated 25th March, 1976 held that the appeal filed by the petitioner stood abated in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 and the District Judge passed the said order holding to that effect. THE petitioner feeling aggrieved with the said order of the lower appellate court, has come up in this petition and in support thereof, I have heard his learned counsel Sri A. N. Bhargava. In opposition, the learned standing counsel has made his submissions. From the averments made in the petition it has come out that no proceedings for the re-determination of the surplus land were taken by the Prescribed Authority either before the aforesaid impugned order was passed by the lower appellate court or even subsequent to the passing of the said order. The learned Standing Counsel has not contested this allegation made on behalf of the petitioner and there is nothing on the record in contradiction of the said allegation. Section 30 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 (U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976) lays down as under : "30 (2)-Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before January 17, 1975 and the Prescribed Authority is required to redetermine the surplus land under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act II of 1975), then notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XVII of 1973), every appeal under Section 13 of the Principal Act or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order, and pending immediately before the date of commencement of this Ordinance shall abate." In the instant case, the Prescribed Authority had passed the order on 5th September, 1974 determining the ceiling area of the surplus land and, therefore, the order was passed before January 17, 1975 as required in the said sub-section. However, there is a further requirement laid down in the said sub-section, namely, that-"the Prescribed Authority is required to re-determine the surplus land under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act II of 1975)". It has to be seen whether the second requirement also stood satisfied in the instant case. Section 9 of the U. P. Act II of 1975 lays down as under ;- "9. Transitory provision-Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the Principal Act, before the commencement of this Act, the Prescribed Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the commencement of this Act, re-determine the surplus land in accordance with the Principal Act as amended by this Act."
(3.) FROM the language of Sec. 9 it seems that it has been left to the Prescribed Authority to decide whether any redetermination is called for in accordance with the Principal Act as amended by the U. P. Act No. II of 1975. This is intelligible because in every case a redetermination may not necessarily be called for in the light of the amendments effected by the Act No. II of 1975. Redetermination may be called for only because of the amendments but in many cases the amendments may not be applicable and, therefore, there need not be any re-determination. The use of expression "may" in the section, therefore, is in consonance with the requirements of the situation. Now in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 the expression used is "and the Prescribed Authority is required to re-determine." This expression has to be read in conjunction with the provisions contained in the said Section 9 of the U. P. Amending Act No. II of 1975. The abatement under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the said Ordinance would come about only when the District Judge had something before him to suggest that the Prescribed Authority had decided to proceed to redetermine the surplus land under Section 9 of the U. P. Amending Act II of 1975. There was nothing on the record to show that the Prescribed Authority was proceeding to make any such re-determination under Section 9 of the U. P. Act No. II of 1975 or that he was even contemplating to proceed under the said provision. In the absence of any such material on record, it is not intelligible as to how the District Judge as the appellate authority could predicate that the Prescribed Authority was required to re-determine the surplus land under Section 9 of the U. P. Act II of 1975. I have already stated above that as a matter of fact no proceedings have till so far been taken by the Prescribed Authority for re-determining the surplus land. It is not disputed that the period of limitation fixed in Section 9 of the U. P. Act No. II of 1975 or the period of limitation fixed under sub-section (3) of Sec. 30 of the U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976, have already expired and thus at present the Prescribed Authority is without jurisdiction to make any redetermination of the surplus land.;