ORDER : Petitioner co-operative society registered under M. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the order Annexure C passed by Tehsildar, Khurai, on 3-11-1983 and order Annexure E passed by Collector, Sagar, on 24-5-1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order Annexure C. 2. Writ petition has been filed on the averment that certain lands were declared surplus in ceiling cases and are allotted to the agriculturists. The Cooperative Societies doing collective farming, have a priority in the matter of allotment of such surplus land. Petitioner society applied for the allotment of surplus land and it was allotted 25.81 acres of land bearing Khasra No. 54/2 in village Mudhiya, Tehsil Khurai, District Sagar. This order of allotment was passed by the S.D.O. in Revenue Case No. 1A of 90(5) 71-72 on 31-8-1974. Since then the petitioner society is in possession of the said land and its members are cultivating the same. The said land is also recorded in the name of the petitioner society in the Revenue records. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sagar, started proceedings for winding up of the society, in case No. 77/44-B-1 purporting to be under Section 69 of the Act. An order was passed on 23-3-1981 for winding up the said society. On appeal being preferred against the same before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar, it has been allowed as per order Annexure B dated 27-9-1985 and the order of the Assistant Registrar has been set aside. The Tehsildar passed an order dated 3-11-1983 directing the Patwari to make corrections in the record on 20-7-1984. The fact was brought to the notice of the Tehsildar that appeal had been filed hence no further action in the matter of allotment of the land be taken because the property still vests in the petitioner society. However, in contravention of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, Tehsildar on 11-6-1985 recomended the land to be allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 14. Allotment order was passed by the Collector on 17-10-1986 as per Annexure R. 5 though the appeal against the order of winding up stood allowed on 27-9-1985 as per order Annexure B = R. 3. Petitioner submits that action is in contravention of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. Allotment order was passed by the Collector on 17-10-1986 as per Annexure R. 5 though the appeal against the order of winding up stood allowed on 27-9-1985 as per order Annexure B = R. 3. Petitioner submits that action is in contravention of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. When appeal was pending it was not open to initiate the proceedings for allotment of the land, when appeal was allowed, it was not within the jurisdiction of Collector to allot the land to respondents No. 4 to 14. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their return contend that the disputed land originally belonged to Shri Surendra Kumar, R/o Bhopal and it was declared surplus. The petitioner society Samuhik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Mudhiya has no document of title in their favour. The only purpose and mala fide intention is to save the surplus land 25.81 acres from being vested in the State Government and on this ground a bogus society was got registered in the year 1972. Thus, the order (Annexure R.2) was passed on 23-3-1981 of winding up. It has not been disputed that this order was set aside by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society vide its order (Annexure R. 3) dated 27-9-1985 and the status of the Society was restored. An application for mutation over the disputed land was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 but the Collector, Sagar, rejected their application on 24-5-1986 as per Annexure R. 4. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner or revision to the Board of Revenue and the petitioner has filed this writ petition directly before this Court without availing the alternative remedy. Petitioner had filed civil Suit No. 437A/1986 in the Court of Civil Judge, Khurai against the State. The Civil Suit has been dismissed. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that civil suit has been dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act. 6. No return has been filed by respondents No. 14. Only respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed the return. 7. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. 6. No return has been filed by respondents No. 14. Only respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed the return. 7. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has primarily urged that once the order of winding up is passed and an appeal is preferred under Section 78, an order of winding up of a society made under Section 69 shall not be operated thereafter until the order is confirmed in appeal and where an order of winding up of a society is set aside in appeal, the property, effects and actionable claims of the society shall revest in the society. In the instant case allotment has been made subsequent to the allowing the appeal by the Joint Registrar setting aside the order of winding up of the society. Thus, the allotment made in favour of respondents No. 4 to 14 on 17-10-1986 is absolutely illegal and bad in law being in the contravention of provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 70 and sub-section 4 of Section 70 of the Act. 8. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3, has supported the action and submitted that the land has rightly been allotted to landless Harizans who belongs to down trodden Class. The land was declared surplus and petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy of Revision. Thus, no interference is called for in the writ petition. 9. Shri K. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 14, has supported the action of the State and submitted that for no fault on their part, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Allotment has been made to the landless persons which calls for no interference. In any case if the writ petition is allowed, respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to allot the land to respondents No. 4 to 14 at an alternative site. Since their entitlement has been found by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and after so many years if the order of allotment is set aside, that is going to cause great hardship to the innocent alottees. 10. Since their entitlement has been found by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and after so many years if the order of allotment is set aside, that is going to cause great hardship to the innocent alottees. 10. First and primary question for consideration is whether it was open to the respondents to initiate the proceedings to allot the land during pendency of appeal and to allot the land in the year 1986 to respondents No. 4 to 14 after the appeal was allowed on 27th September, 1985. 11. Section 70 of the Act deals with the appointment of liquidator. Where the Registrar has made an order under Section 69 for the winding up of a society, he may appoint a liquidator for the purpose and fix his remuneration and may also remove at any time any person appointed as liquidator and appoint another instead. Sub-section (2) of Section 70 provides that a liquidator shall, on appointment, take into his custody or under his control all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the society is or appears to be entitled and shall take such steps as he may deem necessary or expedient, to prevent loss deterioration of, or damage to such, property, effects and claims. However, sub-section (3) provides that where an appeal is preferred under Section 78 an order of winding up of a society made under Section 69 shall not be operated thereafter until the order is confirmed in appeal. Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 70 makes it clear that the liquidator shall continue to have custody of or control over the property, effects and actionable claims mentioned in sub-section (2) and have authority to take the steps referred to in that sub-section. Sub-section (4) of Section 70 makes it clear that where an order of winding up of a society is set aside in appeal, the property, effects and actionable claims of the society shall revest in the society. Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 70 of the Act are quoted below :- "Section 70. Sub-section (4) of Section 70 makes it clear that where an order of winding up of a society is set aside in appeal, the property, effects and actionable claims of the society shall revest in the society. Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 70 of the Act are quoted below :- "Section 70. (3) Where an appeal is preferred under Section 78 an order of winding up of a society made under Section 69 shall not be operated thereafter until the order is confirmed in appeal; Provided that the liquidator shall continue to have custody of or control over the property, effects and actionable claims mentioned in sub-section (2) and have authority to take the steps referred to in that sub-section. (4) Where an order of winding up of a society is set aside in appeal, the property, effects and actionable claims of the society shall revest in the society." 12. It has not been disputed in the instant case that order of winding up of the society was set aside in an appeal filed under Section 78 of the Act dated 27-9-1985 as per Annexure R. 3. It is also not in dispute that allotment was recommended on 11-6-1985 during the pendency of the appeal against the order of winding up and it is also not in dispute that allotment has been ordered by Collector on 17-10-1986 whereas the appeal was allowed on 27-9-1985. Thus, all property stood revest on allowing the appeal as per provision of sub-section (4) of Section 70 of the Act. Thus, in my opinion, Collector had no right to act upon the recommendations made by the Additional Tehsildar on 11-6-1985 to allot the land to respondents No. 4 to 14. During the pendency of appeal the order passed of winding up in the year 1981 was not to be operated till the order was confirmed in the appeal but in the instant case ignoring the statutory bar under sub-section (3) of Section 70 of the Act and under the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 70 of the action has been taken. Thus, the allotment made to respondent Nos. 4 to 14 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 13. Next question for consideration is whether petitioner society was allotted the land and property stood revest to it as per Section 70(4) of the Act. Thus, the allotment made to respondent Nos. 4 to 14 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 13. Next question for consideration is whether petitioner society was allotted the land and property stood revest to it as per Section 70(4) of the Act. There is an averment made in para 2 that certain surplus lands were to be allotted to the agriculturists and the petitioner society applied for the allotment of some surplus land and it was allotted 25.81 acres of land bearing Khasra No. 54/2 by S.D.O. in Revenue Case No. 1A of 90(5) 71-72 on 31-8-1974. This averment has not been disputed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 in their return. Thus, in my opinion, when the land was allotted to the petitioner society on 31-8-1974, the order Annexure C deleting the name of the petitioner from the land record itself is bad in law. The order passed by the Collector Annexure E need not to be commented as no appeal was maintainable and Collector has held that appeal was not maintainable. Hence, order Annexure E passed by Collector is of no consequence. The order passed by the Tehsildar Annexure C and the allotment order Annexure D are quashed. Counsel for respondents No. 4 to 14 has prayed for allotment of alternative land which prayer has not been seriously disputed by the counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and rightly so because the respondents No. 4 to 14 are poor landless persons and belong to down trodden class, State may take action to allot the suitable land to them at early date. Writ petition is allowed. Order of Tehsildar Annexure C and allotment order Annexure D are quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, cost on the parties.