BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant challenged the order passed by learned Single Judge in SBCW Pet. No. 1926/1987 dated 18.3.97. In the writ petition, orders Annex. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 were under challenge. While orders Annex. 4 to 7 relate to determination of area of agriculture lands held by petitioner under ceiling law and determination of Surplus land in excess of ceiling area prescribed. It is not in dispute that Board of Revenue has passed the order on 4.8.80 and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner anywhere until filing of writ petition. The learned Judge opined that in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of those decisions in the garb of notice Annex. 8 dated 11.8.86 inasmuch as the challenge to those concluded orders passed in duly contested proceedings suffers from apparent laches which has not been explained by the petitioner.
(2.) ABOUT the notice Annex. 8 dated 11.8.86, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner challenged it only after one year of the said communication, hence delay of one year in the given case is gross delay. The petitioner-appellant in this appeal contends that since he was seeking a writ of prohibition, therefore, ground of laches have no relevancy in considering the validity of order. We are unable to agree with it. In the instant case, it was not to be determined whether a person holds land in excess of ceiling area prescribed under the statute and the measure of such surplus land. The proceedings are for identifying the land held by the petitioner in excess of ceiling area. It is only after a person is identified of holding to certain extent surplus land in excess of ceiling area, the question of resorting to proceedings for acquiring surplus land in accordance with procedure laid down in the statute, comes into operation. Thus determination of extent of total holdings held by a person and extent of holding that could be held by such person, results in simultaneous determination of extent of surplus land held by such person. Until such determinations are made, stage is not reached for initiating proceedings to acquire specified surplus land. First lap of proceedings culminate on determination of ceiling area and the surplus land. The finding of total holding and extent of ceiling area and surplus area, are not liable to be reviewed or revised when on that basis proceedings for acquisition of surplus land take place. In effect such determination only lays the foundation for future proceedings. If on determination of proceedings until that stage a person is not found to hold surplus land, no further proceedings come into existence at all. On the other hand, if a person is found to hold land in excess of maximum area that he is entitled to hold, the proceedings for acquiring such surplus land to the State is initiated. In either case, proceedings until that stage stand concluded. Therefore, to that extent the proceedings in this case stood concluded about the determination of rights of petitioner to hold the extent of land within the prescribed ceiling area and the surplus land held in his possession. No more proceedings remain pending in that regard. The question thereafter was only in respect of giving effect to such determination and no part of findings reached in proceedings thus far can be reviewed in proceeding for identification and acquisition of specific lands which are in the nature of execution proceedings. The principle is that findings recorded in the proceedings in which the decree has been passed for determination of right, Execution Court cannot go behind it. Therefore, the principle on which the relief to the petitioner on the grounds of laches or delay is denied, is that the rights which have stood declared by reason of the delay in filing the petition, should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. There has been no explanation for the laches of almost 7 years in not challenging the order passed by Board of Revenue concluding the proceedings upto the stage of determination of measure of holdings which could be held by the petitioner and measure of holdings which is held by him in excess of such limit. Even review petition which merely affirmed the order passed by Board of Revenue in 1977, was decided about 7 years before the writ petition was filed. The writ petition was filed by petitioner only after one year of receiving a communication from Tehsildar in the form of Ex.8, which in our opinion, does not give any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the concluded proceedings. It must also be borne in mind that present case is not to challenge the jurisdiction of authorities making the impugned order. The challenge in the present case is firstly to issue writ of certiorari, and quash the order which has come into existence against the petitioner which are alleged to be erroneous and then not to proceed in compliance of said orders for giving effect to. In fact it is not the petition for issuing writ of prohibition, but it is primarily a writ of certiorari to quash the orders which is alleged to have been passed erroneously by the Authority under the imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 prior to 1980 in the year 1986. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without issuing draft statement of land sought to be acquired, and publishing the same under Sec. 13 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural land Act, Land in question cannot be acquired. Therefore, to that extent relief claimed by him is not related to or challenge to orders passed prior to that stage cannot be treated as part of that relief but assume about the finality of order dated 4.8.80 and the order passed before that date. Suffice it to state that this ground is not available to the petitioner inasmuch as there is no whisper in the petition that any action has been contrary to law against the petitioner.
(3.) THE Tehsildar vide Ex. 8 informed the petitioner that 1098 bighas and 10 biswas of land of Khasra No. 141 was taken possession by the State in the Ceiling Proceedings on 1.7.76. However, since the ceiling case was remanded by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.8.76, no further proceedings in pursuance thereof has been taken by entering the said land in the revenue records as State land. It has been stated that since the order of remand, almost 10 years have elapsed, the proceedings must have been culminated into final order, he was required to inform the Tehsildar within a week on receipt of that letter as to the fate of those proceedings and if he is not able to produce any order, respondent assuming that decision to have been made, land shall be entered in the name of State. This letter reflects the bonafide of the Revenue Authorities to act in furtherance to final determination made by the Ceiling Authorities in pursuance of order of remand dated 20.8.76 inasmuch as it clearly states that though possession was taken prior to order of remand, but with due regard to the pendency of Ceiling proceedings since August 1976, land has not been entered in the name of State. THE petitioner has nowhere stated in petition that this statement of fact stated in the impugned communication that possession was taken on 1.7.76 is incorrect. His assertion that he is in possession of the land, cannot be deemed to be an assertion that possession was never taken from him. Fact remains that Annex. 8 reflects intention of the Revenue Authorities to act in pursuance to the decision given in ceiling proceedings in accordance with law. THE petitioner instead of giving, information to the Tehsildar of the decision having been made in 1980 for property against assumption that possession was taken from him in 1976 has not informed by him that unless further proceedings are taken, no possession can be taken from him. We do not see what is reason for entertaining the apprehension that respondents will not act in accordance with law once they are apprised of the decision of Board of Revenue which finally crystalised the rights of petitioner as well as State in respect of area that petitioner could keep and that which was liable to vest in State on identification and taking possession of but to take recourse to petition that acquisition of ceiling land cannot take place without following the procedure in accordance with law. We are of the opinion that discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in not entertaining the petition, at this belated stage for challenging the determination of area which the petitioner is entitled to hold, is perfectly just and proper. The principle in regard to exercise of discretion in not entertaining the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground of laches can be stated that it is imperative if the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary remedy available under Art. 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. It is essential that persons who are aggrieved by any order of the Government or any executive action should approach the High Court with utmost expedition. In an appropriate case the High Court may not exercise its discretion and may refused to grant relief if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the other party. ;