A.P.SAHR, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ravi Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.S. Singh Advocate, counsel for the respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) THE petitioners came to be allotted land, in respect of the holdings of Meda, whose land was declared surplus vide order dated 15.4.1976. The said order was however, modified and vide order dated 15.6.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority upon a remand in appeal, the area was considerably reduced. This obviously resulted in the nullifying of the orders passed by the authority granting Patta in favour of petitioners. The choice of the land holder was accepted and thereafter revenue entries were corrected. It appears that consolidation operations intervened and thereafter orders were passed by the Consolidation Authorities giving effect to the claim of the choice holding of the tenure holder Meda made in accordance with the orders passed by Ceiling Authority. It appears that after the order dated 15.6.1979 the revenue entries were corrected and the tenure holder continued in possession of the land about which orders were passed in his favour by the Ceiling Authority. Since the petitioners could not take possession of the land allotted earlier they sought restitution of their leases after the consolidation proceedings had intervened by moving applications before the Prescribed Authority after almost 25 years on 25.4.2005. The Prescribed Authority passed the order rejecting, the said application on 12.3.2008 clearly holding that whatever, revenue entries have been made and the allegation of the petitioners in respect of parwana amaldaramad is concerned the same relates to the proceedings under the Consolidation of Land Holding Act, and therefore, same cannot be corrected under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. It was further found that the application had been moved almost 25 years. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, levelling allegations and reiterating the fact that the order dated 11.5.81 is non-existent. The question as to whether the said order is an existence or not could not been made the subject matter of the proceedings in the year 2005, when the proceedings had finally culminated in the order dated 15.6.79. It is not the case of petitioners that the order dated 15.6.79 is forged. Even otherwise assuming for the sake of argument that the order dated 11.5.81 of merely carrying out necessary corrections according to the judgment dated 15.6.79 was not traceable, then too also the effect in law is that the allotments stood annulled in view of the substantial reduction in the surplus area of the tenure holder. Reference may be had to the law laid down in Satish Chandra Mathur and others v. State and others, 1996 (1) ACJ 78.
(3.) IN view of this it appears to be that the petitioners who could not succeed in getting the possession of the allotted land moved this application after 25 years. In my considered opinion this course was not open to the petitioners and as a matter of fact in case any surplus land was available then fresh proceedings ought to have been undertaken which was not done. The application moved by the petitioners has been rightly rejected and the issue of restitution does not arise.;