Randhir Varma v. State of U. P — 1984 DIGILAW 833 (ALL)

ORDER S.C. Mathur, J. - These two petitions have been connected together as some of the facts necessary for determination of the questions in dispute are common. Both the petitions arise under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act No. I of 1961). 2. Randhir Verma petitioner in Writ Petition No. 431 of 1983 was tenure-holder of land measuring 1123-6-1 in village Saimesi, Medarpur, Salimpur and Karora in Tahsil Mohanlalganj, district Lucknow. On 26-6-1957 he executed sale-deeds in favour of several persons in respect of different areas comprised in the holding. On 15-3-1958 mutation was effected in favour of the vendees. These vendees are petitioners in the connected writ petition. On 9-4-1974 the Prescribed Authority issued notices under S. 10(2) of the Act to the petitioner and to his vendees who held land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by the Act. By order dated 24-12-1974 the Prescribed Authority declared 20-10-12 as the surplus area of Randhir Verma. Randhir Verma preferred appeal and the appellate court by its judgment and order dated 26-5-1976 held that he did not hold any surplus land. The cases of the transferees, to whom notices had been issued under S. 10(2), were decided on various dates. Thereafter on 26-12-1979 notice was issued against Randhir Verma under S. 10(2) showing his surplus area which was proposed to be acquired under the Ceiling Act as 842- 18-3-9. In this notice the land which had been transferred by Randhir Verma through sale- deeds dated 26-6-1957 was also treated to be his land. Similar notices were not issued to his transferees. Randhir Verma preferred objections and pleaded that the second notice was incompetent. He also pleaded that the land transferred by him to the petitioners of the connected writ petition could not be included in his holding. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 5-4-1982 rejected the claim of the petitioner and declared the area mentioned in the notice as the surplus area of Randhir Verma. Against this order Randhir Verma preferred appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge by his judgment and order dated 11-1-1983 allowed the appeal and setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority remanded the case to that Authority for decision in accordance with law taking into account the observations made in the judgment. Against this order Randhir Verma preferred appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge by his judgment and order dated 11-1-1983 allowed the appeal and setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority remanded the case to that Authority for decision in accordance with law taking into account the observations made in the judgment. Aggrieved by this order Randhir Verma has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case of Randhir Verma is that the second notice under S. 19(2) was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned District Judge to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority. According to him since the notice was invalid, the entire proceedings should have been quashed by the learned District Judge. 3. In the connected writ petition the transferees of Randhir Verma have stated that on the basis of the order dated 5-4-1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority in the case arising from the second notice under S. 10(2) issued to Randhir Verma, the names of the petitioners which had been recorded in the Khatauni were deleted and instead the names of others were introduced. The petitioners aver that in view of the fact that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-4-1982 has been set aside by judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 11-1-1983, the petitioners' names deserve to be restored. It appears that a joint application was made by the petitioners for restoration of their names in the revenue records, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 22. According to the petitioners this application has not been disposed of and the petitioners are being threatened with dispossession. On this basis they have approached this Court with the prayer that a writ, direction or, order in the nature of mandamus be issued to command the opposite parties to correct the entries in the revenue records by restoring the names of the petitioners as they existed prior to the passing of the order dated 5-4-1982. 4. Both the writ petitions have been contested on behalf of the State. In the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has tried to be asserted that the Ceiling Authorities did not act properly and colluded with Randhir Verma in saving his land from being acquired under the Act. 4. Both the writ petitions have been contested on behalf of the State. In the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has tried to be asserted that the Ceiling Authorities did not act properly and colluded with Randhir Verma in saving his land from being acquired under the Act. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the State submitted that the order passed in the earlier ceiling proceedings was vitiated by fraud and, therefore, second notice could be issued to Randhir Verma for re-determination of his ceiling and surplus area. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the plea that second notice could not be issued was not raised by Randhir Verma before the Prescribed Authority or before the learned Additional District Judge and, therefore, this plea cannot be entretained at this stage. According to the learned counsel the second notice, was competently issued in view of the provisions contained in sub-s. (2) of S. 9 of the Act. In support of this submission the proviso to sub- s. (2) was relied upon. 5. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the plea now raised by petitioner Randhir Verma was not raised before the authorities below cannot be sustained. The learned counsel placed before me a copy of the memorandum of appeal preferred by Randhir Verma before the learned District Judge. Ground (b) of this memorandum reads as follows : "Because the learned Prescribed Authority has committed a manifest error of law and jurisdiction in issuing a fresh notice under S. 19(2) of the said Act, in respect of the land of the appellant in spite of the fact that for the same subject matter, a notice under S. 19(2) of the said Act was issued in the year 1974 to the appellant, the case registered on the basis of the said notice, was ultimately decided by the learned Court of the District Judge, Lucknow in favour of the appellant and it was held that the petitioner did not possess any surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act." The above ground in the memorandum of appeal squarely covers the plea now raised in the instant writ petition. A perusal of the order D/- 5-4-1982 shows that the plea was raised before the Prescribed Authority also. A perusal of the order D/- 5-4-1982 shows that the plea was raised before the Prescribed Authority also. In any case since the plea had been raised before the learned District Judge, the submission of the learned counsel for the State cannot be sustained. 6. The material question that arises for determination in the writ petition of Randhir Verma is whether a second notice could be issued for re-determination of ceiling and surplus areas once that determination had been made on the basis of an earlier notice. A few provisions of the original Ceiling Act and the Amending Acts will require consideration. 7. The U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the original Act, received the assent of the President on 24-12-1960 and was published in U. P. Gazette Extra- ordinary D/- 3-1-1961. It required the ceiling area to be determined with reference to "Fair quality Land." which term was defined in S. 3(2). By S. 4(2) the ceiling area of a tenure holder was fixed as forty acres of "fair Quality land". This area was applicable to a tenure holder whose family comprised of not more than five members. Where the family comprised of more than five members, the ceiling area increased by eight acres per additional members, subject to a maximum of twenty four acres. Sub-s. (1) of S. 4 provided that the ceiling area of a tenure holder shall be calculated after taking into account all the land in any holding in the State held by him in his own right whether in his own name or ostensibly in the name of any other person. Thus if a tenure holder held land fictitiously in the name of some one else, that land was also to be treated as his land while determining his ceiling area. Section 5(1) provided that as and from the date of commencement of the Act, no tenure holder shall, except as otherwise provided by the Act be entitled to hold an area in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Sections 6 and 7 specified certain categories of land which were not to be taken into consideration while determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder. Sections 6 and 7 specified certain categories of land which were not to be taken into consideration while determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder. Section 9(1) required the Prescribed Authority to get a general notice published in the official gazette requiring every tenure holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area to submit to him within thirty days of the date of publication a statement in respect of all his holdings. Where a tenure holder failed to furnish such a statement or where the statement submitted was found by the Prescribed Authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the said authority was required to get the same prepared through its own subordinates and get it served upon the tenure holder along with a notice issued under S. 19(2) requiring the tenure holder to show cause why the said statement may not be taken as correct. Sections 11 and 12 related respectively to determination of ceiling and surplus areas where no objection was filed and where objection was filed. Section 13 provided for appeal to the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority. Sections 11(3), 12(3) and 13(2) give finality to the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. Their orders are immune from challenge in any Court of law. Section 14(1) required the surplus land so determined to be notified in the official gazette and under sub-sec. (2) the land so notified vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Sub-secs. (3) to (6) related to filing of objections by third parties who claimed interest in the land notified under S. 14(1) and their disposal. Sections 29 and 30 prescribed for re-determination of surplus land where the area of a tenure- holder's holding increased by virtue of future acquisitions. From a survey of these provisions of the original Act, it would be seen that determination of ceiling and surplus areas once made was final and it could be re-opened only it the tenure holder acquired further land. 8. The original Act was drastically amended by the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973), for short Amending Act 18 of 1973. Through this Act, drastic changes were made in the original Act. 8. The original Act was drastically amended by the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973), for short Amending Act 18 of 1973. Through this Act, drastic changes were made in the original Act. The ceiling area instead of being determined in terms of "Fair Quality Land" was now required to be determined in terms of "irrigated land" which term was defined through newly added cl. (11) of S. 3. Under amended S. 5(3) the ceiling area of a tenure holder, whose family comprised of not more than five persons, was prescribed to be 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. Additional land was prescribed if the strength of the family increased. The date with reference to which the ceiling area was to be determined also changed. It became the date on which the Amending Act was enforced. The Amending Act was enforced with effect from 8-6-1973 when it was published in the U. P. Gazette Extra ordinary. These amendments and other amendments made it necessary to re-determine the ceiling and surplus areas of those tenure holders also whose such areas had already been determined under the original Act. Therefore, by the amended sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 the Prescribed Authority was required to get the general notice published in the gazette as soon as may be after the enforcement of the Amending Act. The provisions of Section 10 became applicable as a consequence and therefore the Prescribed Authority became entitled to issue a fresh notice under S. 10(2). The finality of the orders passed in pursuance of the amended provisions was retained through Sections 11(3). 12(2) and 13(2). Under the amended Act also, there were certain provisions under which the ceiling area or surplus area already determined could be varied. These are Sections 13-A, 29, 30 and 31. Section 13-A authorised the Prescribed Authority to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record, but there is a limitation prescribed, the rectification has to be done within two years of the notification of the surplus land under S. 14(1). These are Sections 13-A, 29, 30 and 31. Section 13-A authorised the Prescribed Authority to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record, but there is a limitation prescribed, the rectification has to be done within two years of the notification of the surplus land under S. 14(1). Section 29 contemplates re-determination where the area of the holding increases by virtue of the tenure holder acquiring land after the enforcement of the amending Act, under a decree of order of a Court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, or any un-irrigated land becoming irrigated or any grove land losing its character as a grove land or any land exempted under the Act ceasing to fall under any of the excepted categories. Section 30 merely prescribe the procedure to be followed when re-determination was required under S. 29. Section 31 dealt with land gained by recess of river. These are the only provisions in the Act as amended by the Amending Act under which the ceiling and surplus areas of a tenure holder could be varied once the said areas had been determined under the amended provisions. None of these provisions authorised the Prescribed Authority to issue fresh notice under S. 10(2) on the basis that in earlier proceedings there had been collusion between the tenure holder and the ceiling authorities and therefore the ceiling and surplus areas could not properly be determined. It may be mentioned that notice under S. 10(2) was issued to the petitioner on 9-4-1974 and obviously the determination of ceiling and surplus areas by the Prescribed Authority by its order D/- 24-12-1974 was made under the amended provisions. Amendments after determination of surplus area. 9. After the determination had been made by the Prescribed Authority and when the petitioner's appeal was pending before the District Judge, the Act was again amended by the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975), for short Amending Act 2 of 1975. This Act received the assent of the President on 14-1-1975 and was published in the U. P. Gazette on 17-1-1975. This Act made amendment in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and added a new S. 4-A. Section 4-A prescribed the manner of determination of "irrigated land". This Act received the assent of the President on 14-1-1975 and was published in the U. P. Gazette on 17-1-1975. This Act made amendment in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and added a new S. 4-A. Section 4-A prescribed the manner of determination of "irrigated land". By S. 6 of the Amending Act, two Explanations, I and II were added to sub-sec. (1) of S. 5. These Explanations read as follows : "Explanation I - In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account." "Explanation II - If land was originally held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivator possession and the name of any other person is subsequently entered in the annual registers either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person." S. 9 of this amending Act provided as follows : "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." This Section does authorise re-determination of surplus and ceiling areas, but it places a restriction of time within which it may be done. This is two years from the commencement of the Act. By S. 1(2), S. 9 was enforced at once i.e. with effect from the date of publication in the gazette. The Act having been published on 17-1-1975, the period of two years expired on 17-1-1977. Admittedly within this period neither any notice was issued nor any re-determination was made. This is two years from the commencement of the Act. By S. 1(2), S. 9 was enforced at once i.e. with effect from the date of publication in the gazette. The Act having been published on 17-1-1975, the period of two years expired on 17-1-1977. Admittedly within this period neither any notice was issued nor any re-determination was made. Therefore even if the petitioner's ceiling and surplus areas were -required to be re-determined in accordance with the provisions of the amending Act, the right of re-determination was lost to the State or the Prescribed Authority by efflux of time. Neither the Amending Act made any provision for abatement of pending appeals nor in the appeal filed by the petitioner which was pending any statement appears to have been made on behalf of the State that the petitioner's ceiling and surplus areas required re-determination. 10. While the appeal was still pending the Act was again amended by the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, (U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975). This Ordinance was promulgated and published in the U. P. Gazette Extra-ordinary on 10-10-1975. Apart from other Sections, it amended Sections 5, 6, 9, 12A and 14. By amendment of S. 14, the right of third party objection after notification of surplus land under S. 14(1) was taken away. To sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 the following proviso was added "Provided that at any time after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, the Prescribed Authority may by notice, call upon any tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him in the enforcement of the said Act, to submit to him within thirty days from the date of service of such notice a statement referred to in sub-sec. (1) or any information pertaining thereto." 11. A new sub-sec. (2A) was also added after sub-sec. (2) as follows : "(2A). Every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area on Jan. 24, 1971, or at any time thereafter who has not submitted the statement referred to in sub-sec. (1) or any information pertaining thereto." 11. A new sub-sec. (2A) was also added after sub-sec. (2) as follows : "(2A). Every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area on Jan. 24, 1971, or at any time thereafter who has not submitted the statement referred to in sub-sec. (2) and in respect of whom no proceeding under this Act is pending on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Moldings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, furnish to the Prescribed Authority a statement containing particulars of all land (a) held by him and the members of his family on Jan. 24, 1971: (b) acquired on disposed of by him or by members of his family between Jan. 24, 1971 and the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on. Land Holding (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975." This Amending Ordinance also contains provision for re-determination of ceiling and surplus areas where such areas had already been determined. This provision is contained in S. 27 of the Ordinance. Sub-secs. (1), (2) and (3) alone are material for the purposes of the present case and they are as follows : "Transitory Provisions :- (1) All proceedings under sub-secs. (3) to (7) of S. 14 of the Principal Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance pending before any court or authority immediately before the date of such commencement shall abate. (2) Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before Jan. 17, 1975 and the Prescribed Authority is required to re-determine the surplus land under S. 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-sec. (2) of S. 19 of the Uttar pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on- Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XVIII of 1973), every appeal under S. 13 of the principal Act, or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order on or after Jan. 17, 1975. and pending immediately before the date of commencement of this Ordinance shall abate. 17, 1975. and pending immediately before the date of commencement of this Ordinance shall abate. (3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may at any time within a period of two years from the commencement of this Ordinance re-determine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Ordinance, notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land." Under sub-sec. (2) an appeal filed on or after 17-1-1975 and pending on the date of commencement the Ordinance abates, but this consequence will follow if surplus land is required to be re-determined under S. 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, (U. P. Act No. II of 1975). In the case on hand, the exact date of filing the appeal by the petitioner is not available but in all probability it was filed on or after 17-1-1975. The appeal was admittedly pending on the date of commencement of the Ordinance. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be abated if the petitioner's surplus area was required to be re- determined under S. 9 of the U. P. Act No. II of 1975. The period of two years prescribed under S. 9 of U. P. Act No. II of 1975 had not yet expired and therefore the petitioner's appeal was liable to be abated if the other condition prescribed by S. 9 was fulfilled. This other condition was if re-determination of surplus land was required in view of the amendments made in the principal Act by Amending Act No. II of 1975. Now the State's own case is that the original determination of surplus land was wrong as it was the result of collusion between the petitioner and the ceiling authorities. The State's case therefore cannot be covered by the condition that re- determination should be required in view of the amendment made by U. P. Act No. 11 of 1974. Even if any right to claim abatement of the appeal was available to the State, it was not availed of by pressing before the District Judge that the appeal may be abated as the surplus land has to be re-determined under the amended provisions. Even if any right to claim abatement of the appeal was available to the State, it was not availed of by pressing before the District Judge that the appeal may be abated as the surplus land has to be re-determined under the amended provisions. The District Judge could abate the appeal only if he had something before him to suggest that the Prescribed Authority had decided to re-determine the surplus land. This is apparent from the language of sub-sec. (3) where under the Prescribed Authority can exercise the right of re-determination only within two years of the date of commencement of the Ordinance. If the District Judge abates the appeal without the Prescribed Authority deciding to re- determine the surplus land, the appellant before the District Judge would suffer serious prejudice as he would be left with no remedy with regard to the challenge raised in the appeal which has been since abated. In taking this view I am supported by the decision of M. P. Mehrotra, J. in Baijnath Pathak v. District Judge, Jaunpur, 1978 All WC 593 : (1978 All LJ 826). In this case the ceiling and surplus areas were determined by Prescribed Authority's order D/- 5-9-1974. Both parties filed appeal and while the appeals were pending U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 was enforced as a consequence whereof the District Judge abated the appeals by order D/- 25-3-1976 relying upon S. 30(2) of the Ordinance. Setting aside the order of abatement, Mehrotra J. observed in paragraph 5 (of All. W.C.) : (Para 6 of All U)as follows: "........ The abatement under sub-sec. (2) of S. 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 re-determine the surplus land under S. 9 of the U. P. Amending Act No. II of 1975. There was nothing on the record to show that the Prescribed Authority was proceeding to make any such re-determination under S. 9 of the U. P. Act No. 11 of 1975 or that even contemplating to proceed under the said provision. There was nothing on the record to show that the Prescribed Authority was proceeding to make any such re-determination under S. 9 of the U. P. Act No. 11 of 1975 or that 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 S. 9 of the U. P. Act No. II of 1975." 12. With the above observation the order of abatement was quashed and the appeal was directed to be decided on merits. Although this judgment was made on an interpretation of S. 30(2) of U. P. Ordinance No. XI of 1976, it has full application to S. 27(2) of U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 also, as the language of the two provisions is similar. 13. Under sub-sec. (3) of S. 27 the re- determination could be made only within two years from the commencement of the Ordinance. Admittedly, no re-determination was made within this period. 14. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 was followed by the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, (U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976). It has been given retrospective effect from Oct. 10, 1975, when U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 was promulgated. Most of the provisions of this Ordinance are the same as of the earlier Ordinance. In the latter Ordinance the provisions for abatement of appeal and for re- determination of surplus land are contained in sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 30 thereof. These are similar to sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 27 of the earlier Ordinance. Therefore, my observations regarding Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 are applicable to Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 also. 15. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 was replaced by the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976). In this Act, the provisions for abatement of appeal and re-determination of surplus land are contained in sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 31. With slight variations these provisions are similar to sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sections 27 and 30 of U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 and U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 respectively. In this Act, the provisions for abatement of appeal and re-determination of surplus land are contained in sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 31. With slight variations these provisions are similar to sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sections 27 and 30 of U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 and U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 respectively. In order to show that the variations have not affected the legal position discussed above, sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 31 of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 may be reproduced. These are as follows : "31. Transitory Provisions. - (1) ................... (2)Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before Jan. 17, 1975 and the Prescribed Authority is required to re-determine the surplus land under S. 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act No. II of 1975), then notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (2) of S. 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XVIII of 1973) every appeal under S. 13 of the principal Act or other proceedings .in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order, and pending immediately before the tenth day of Oct., 1975, shall be deemed to have abated on the said date. (emphasis supplied). (3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the tenth day of October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act), may, at any time within a period of two years from the said date, re-determine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against the said order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land." The variation in sub-see. (2) has been made by substitution of the words "shall be deemed to have abated on the said date" in place of the words "shall abate." The consequence of this variation is that the abatement is automatic. Even then the other requirement remains, viz. there should be requirement to re-determine in view of the amended provisions. (2) has been made by substitution of the words "shall be deemed to have abated on the said date" in place of the words "shall abate." The consequence of this variation is that the abatement is automatic. Even then the other requirement remains, viz. there should be requirement to re-determine in view of the amended provisions. Where the amended provisions are not attracted there would be neither any requirement of re- determination of surplus area nor there would be any question of abatement of the appeal. For the reasons already recorded, there was no requirement in the present case to re- determine the surplus area. Further, the period of limitation of two years also remains and this period is to be computed from 10-10-1975. Therefore, even if re-determination was required, it had to be done by 10-10-1977. As already noticed the second notice under S. 10(2) was given on 26-12-1979 which falls much beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the amending provisions. 16. The above are the only amending Ordinances and the Acts which have a bearing on the subject under discussion. Every amending Ordinance or Act enforced after 24-12-1974, when the Prescribed Authority determined the petitioner's surplus land, contained a specific provision for re- determination of surplus land, where determination of such land had already been made prior to the amendment and the petitioner's case is neither covered by these provisions nor the limitations for such determination was surviving when the impugned second notice was issued. The second notice is therefore, without jurisdiction. 17. The learned counsel for the State however submits that the provisions for re- determination of surplus land contained in the amending Ordinances and Acts are irrelevant as the right of re-determination is available under the amended S. 9 itself which does not prescribe any period of limitation for such re-determination. Relevant provisions of S. 9 as they existed on the date of issue of the second notice are as follows : "9.(1). Relevant provisions of S. 9 as they existed on the date of issue of the second notice are as follows : "9.(1). As soon as may be, after the date of enforcement of this Act, the Prescribed Authority shall, by general notice, published in the Official Gazette, call upon every tenure- holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the date of enforcement of this Act, to submit to him within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall also indicate the plot or plots for which he claims exemption and also those which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him under the provisions of this Act. (2) As soon as may be after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, the Prescribed Authority shall by a like general notice, call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the enforcement of said Act, to submit to him within 30 days of publication of such notice a statement referred to in sub-sec. (1). (2-A). Every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area on Jan. 24, 1971, or at any time thereafter who has not submitted the statement referred to in sub-sec. (2) and in respect of whom no proceeding under this Act is pending on Oct. 10, 1975 shall, within thirty days from the said date furnish to the Prescribed Authority a statement containing particulars of all land. (3) ........................" S. 9 as originally enacted did not have any sub-section. By the Amending Act No. 18 of 1973 the original S. 9 was re-numbered as sub- sec. (1) and sub-secs. (2) and (3) were added. By this Amending Act, as already noticed, drastic changes were effected. Therefore by S. 19 of the Act it was provided that pending proceedings shall abate and fresh notices shall be issued under sub-sec. (2) of S. 9. No period of limitation was provided for issue of this notice, either in S. 19 or in sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 as inserted by the Amending Act. Therefore by S. 19 of the Act it was provided that pending proceedings shall abate and fresh notices shall be issued under sub-sec. (2) of S. 9. No period of limitation was provided for issue of this notice, either in S. 19 or in sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 as inserted by the Amending Act. In the case on hand neither S. 9(2) is applicable nor S. 19 as the petitioner's surplus area was determined under the Act as amended by this Amending Act. U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975 did not bring about any amendment in S. 9. All the same it contained a specific provision for re- determination of surplus area if a re-determination was required because of the amendments made by this Act and it also fixed a period of limitation for such re-determination, the same being two years from the commencement of the Amending Act. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 added a Proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 and also added sub-sec. (2A) after sub-sec. (2). This amending Ordinance also contains a specific provision for re- determination of surplus land and by sub- sec. (3) of S. 27 a period of two years is fixed therefor. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 and Act No. 20 of 1976 carry forward the same s amendments in S. 9 and as already noticed these amending ordinance and Act also contain specific provisions for re-determination of surplus land consequent to the amendments made by them and they fix time limit for doing the same. In view of these specific provisions for re-determination contained in the amending Ordinances and the Acts reliance cannot be placed upon the general provision contained in S. 9 for determination or re- determination of surplus land. It is true that in the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 the words "at any time after October 10, 1975" have been used but these words have to be read along with the words "within a period of two years from the said date" contained in sub-sec. (3) of S. 31 of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. Both, the Proviso relied upon by the State counsel and S. 31(3), are parts of the same statute and they have to he given harmonious consideration. If the submission of the learned counsel for the State is accepted the period of two years prescribed by sub-sec. (3) of S. 31 of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. Both, the Proviso relied upon by the State counsel and S. 31(3), are parts of the same statute and they have to he given harmonious consideration. If the submission of the learned counsel for the State is accepted the period of two years prescribed by sub-sec. (3) of S. 31 will become redundant. The words "at any time" in the Proviso will, therefore, in the case of re determination, be controlled by the period of two years prescribed in S. 31(3). Where there has been no determination earlier, there is no restriction of time for the Prescribed Authority to issue the notice. This, in my opinion, is the only way to harmonise the provisions of the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. (9) as amended by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 and S. 31(3) of the said Act. 18. In view taken by me has the support of the following decisions of this Court : (1) 1974 All L.1649 (DB) Dharma Kunwar v. State of U. P., (2) 1978 All LJ 1197, Ram Lal v. State of U. P., (3) 1981 All LJ 1070, Pratap Swarup Dublish v. State of U. P., and (4) 1984 All LJ 33 Smt. Mithilesh Kumari v. State of U. P. 19. In Srimati Dharma Kunwar (supra) the second notice under S. 10(2) was issued on the basis that in earlier proceedings, two plots had escaped from ceiling operations. The Division Bench comprising of Jagmohan Lal and Prem Prakash JJ. held that there was no provision in the Ceiling Act similar to S. 147 of the Income-tax and S. 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and therefore, the second notice was invalid. In Ram Lal (supra) Gopi Nath J. after referring to S. 9 of U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975 and S. 31 of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 held that re- determination was called for only in cases affected by the amendments made in the principal Act. In Pratap Swarup Dublish (supra) the re-determination was set aside as it was made beyond the period of two years prescribed by S. 31(3) of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. In Pratap Swarup Dublish (supra) the re-determination was set aside as it was made beyond the period of two years prescribed by S. 31(3) of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. In Smt. Mithilesh Kumari (supra) it was urged on behalf of the State that since the right to issue fresh notice became available under the amended S. 9 itself, there was no necessity of going to the transitory provision of the Amending Act which prescribed the period of two years for re-determination. The plea was negatived by M. P. Mehrotra J. who quashed the order of re-determination with the finding that the same did not arise from the amendments made in the principal Act and also because it was made beyond the period of two years prescribed by S. 31(3) of U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. 20. In view of the above, the writ petition of Randhir Verma deserves to be allowed. Writ Petition No. 2323 of 1983 21. As already' stated hereinabove, Randhir Verma had executed sale-deeds in favour of several persons on 26-6-1957 and in pursuance of these sale-deeds, mutation was also effected in favour of the transferees on 15-3-1968. When notice under S. 10(2) was issued to Randhir Vernia in earlier proceedings, the land transferred to the present petitioners was not clubbed with the land of Randhir Verma. Separate notices were issued to such of the present petitioners as were alleged to hold land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to them and orders were passed in the proceedings arising from the said notices. After order had been passed against Randhir Verma on the basis of the second notice issued to him on 26-12-1979, the mutation which had been effected in favour of the present petitioners was cancelled and the khatauni was amended in accordance with the order dated 5-4-1982 passed against Randhir Verma. After the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-4-1982 had been set aside by the learned District Judge by order dated 11-1-1983, the petitioners moved an application before the Prescribed Authority to restore the possession in the Khataunis that existed prior to the passing of the order, dated 5-4-1982, a copy of this application has been filed as Annexure 23. After the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-4-1982 had been set aside by the learned District Judge by order dated 11-1-1983, the petitioners moved an application before the Prescribed Authority to restore the possession in the Khataunis that existed prior to the passing of the order, dated 5-4-1982, a copy of this application has been filed as Annexure 23. This application was not disposed of but the petitioners were threatened with eviction on the basis of the amendment made in the Khatauni, Apprehending their dispossession the present petitioners approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to correct the entries in the revenue papers so as to bring on record the names of the petitioners in place of the names brought on record on the basis of the order dated 5-4-1982. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that S. 144 of the Civil P.C. would be attracted to the present case and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority on its order being set aside by the learned District Judge has to effect restitution under the said provision. It was also submitted that apart from S. 144 of the Civil P. C., once the basis for the amendment in the Khatauni has been taken away by the appellate order, the said amendment cannot be continued. 23. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State whose learned counsel submitted that the land declared surplus in respect of Randhir Verma has already been allotted and if the petitioners seek cancellation of that allotment order, they should prefer appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and they cannot get any relief through the present petition. It was also submitted that the allottees have been put in possession and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief in the present petition. 24. The only basis on which the petitioners' names were removed from the Khatauni was the order dated 5-4-1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority in proceedings arising from second notice issued to Randhir Verma under S. 10(2) of the Act. I have already held that this second notice was illegal and the proceedings arising therefrom were also illegal. In the circumstances, anything done on the basis of the said proceedings is also illegal and is liable to be quashed. I have already held that this second notice was illegal and the proceedings arising therefrom were also illegal. In the circumstances, anything done on the basis of the said proceedings is also illegal and is liable to be quashed. In taking this view, I am supported by the decision in Kailashiya v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Banda 1981 All U 622 = 1981 All WC 143. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the mandamus prayed for. ORDER 25. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 431 of 1983 filed by Randhir Verma is hereby allowed and the notice dated 26-12-1979 issued to him by the Prescribed Authority under S. 10(2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The costs of this petition shall be easy. 26. Writ Petition No. 2323 of 1983 filed by Ashok Kumar and others is also hereby allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue against the opposite parties commanding them to restore the entries in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners as they existed immediately before the passing of the order dated 5-4-1982 by the Prescribed Authority in proceedings arising from the notice dated 26-12-1979 issued to Sri Randhir Verma under S. 10(2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Petitioners shall be entitled to receive costs from the opposite parties.