JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi senior advocate, assisted by Sri J. B. Mishra, on behalf of the petitioner, standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Sanjay Goswami, Advocate on behalf of the other private respondents. 2. This writ petition was decided by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 6th May, 1996. A Special Appeal No. 5241-5242 of 2003 was filed by Doodh Nath and others (who are respondents in the present writ petition) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the Special Appeal and after setting aside the judgment of this Court, remanded the matter for disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. After objections were filed by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority determined 39.03 Acres of land as surplus. Thereafter the petitioner, along with other persons, filed appeal before the District Judge, which were numbered as 385 of 1977, 396 of 1977 and 397 of 1977. The appeals were decided by the IInd Additional District Judge by means of the orders dated 20.11.1980, 17th March, 1980 and 20.11.1981 respectively. The appellate court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the Prescribed Authority. 4. The Prescribed Authority could not proceed with the matter as the record of the cases were summoned by the appellate court in another appeal Devta v. State of U. P. Ultimately the Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 28.2.1995 re-determined the ceiling limits of the petitioner. By means of the said order, the prescribed Authority maintained that the petitioner had surplus land to the extent of 39.03 acres situate in various villages. The Prescribed Authority, however, under the order dated 28.2.1995 accepted the choice exercised by the petitioner and declared that the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti be left for being used by the petitioner while land of the petitioner situate in other villages may be declared surplus and for that purpose 39.03 acres of land of the petitioner, as per Schedule-Ka appended to the said order, has declared as surplus. It is not in dispute that in the Schedule-Ka the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti is not included. 5. During this period the State Government through Collector, Padrauna (Kushinagar) allotted the surplus land of the petitioner to the persons impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 to 40, which included the land situate in village Siswa Goiti. 6. The petitioners filed an application on 15th April, 1991 under Section 27 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act for cancellation of the patta of the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti. The said application of the petitioner was numbered as Ceiling Case No. 81/D-1991. 7. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the order dated 28.2.1995 referred to above, was passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring that the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti be excluded from the surplus land and land of the petitioner situate in other villages be declared surplus as per Schedule-Ka. 8. The Commissioner by means of the order dated 16th January, 1996 rejected the said application of the petitioner under Section 27 (4) with a finding that the application is not maintainable and the only remedy available to petitioner was to approach the Prescribed Authority. Hence the present writ petition. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. 10. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Commissioner, rejecting the application of the petitioner as not maintainable under Section 27 (4), is totally misconceived. It is further contended that the Prescribed Authority had already declared that the land of the petitioner situate in village Siswa Goiti be not included in the surplus land and the same has been left for the use of the petitioner. In such circumstances the question of approaching the Prescribed Authority again does not arise. It is stated that the petitioner answers the description of aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 27 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and as such his application was legally maintainable. 11. In such circumstances the question of approaching the Prescribed Authority again does not arise. It is stated that the petitioner answers the description of aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 27 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and as such his application was legally maintainable. 11. On behalf of the respondent it is contended by Sri Sanjay Goswami that the application as filed by the petitioner was legally not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner had to ask for restitution of his possession in respect of the land which had been allotted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner. The Commissioner under Section 27 (4) can only look in to the procedural defects in the allotment. According to the counsel for the respondent Section 27 (4) (i) makes it clear that after the allotment is cancelled, the land shall necessarily revert to the State Government and consequently the petitioner, who is the tenure holder, cannot take benefit of the proceedings under Section 27 (4) inasmuch as in no case the land can revert back to petitioner. 12. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has force. Under Section 27 (4) any person aggrieved by the settlement of the land, which according to him is illegal, may approach the Commissioner for cancellation of the patta. The person aggrieved would necessarily include a tenure holder, whose ceiling limits have either been reduced in appeal or under order of writ court his choice. has been subsequently accepted by the prescribed authority or by the appellate authority. 13. Once the Ceiling Authorities have accepted the choice exercised by the petitioner tenure holder, any allotment of land other than the one for which the choice has been exercised by the tenure holder would become irregular. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not come within the definition of aggrieved person. 14. In such circumstances, the order of the Commissioner, holding that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, cannot be sustained. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not come within the definition of aggrieved person. 14. In such circumstances, the order of the Commissioner, holding that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, cannot be sustained. Similarly, the finding recorded by the Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner should approach the Prescribed Authority for restitution of his possession in respect of the land in village Siswa Goiti, is also totally misconceived inasmuch as the Prescribed Authority has already declared that the land of the petitioner situate in the said village would be left out from the surplus land and would remain with the petitioner for his own purpose. 15. In view of the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, no further orders are required to be obtained by the petitioner and the only course open to the petitioner was to approach the Commissioner for cancellation of the patta, which have been made in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 to 40, under Section 27 (4). It may be noted that under the Ceiling Act the Prescribed Authority has not been granted any power to cancel the patta of surplus land and the power in that regard is vested with Commissioner only under Section 27 of the Act. The petitioner, as such, rightly approached the Commissioner for ventilating his grievances. 16. The contention of the standing counsel to the effect that once an order under Section 27 (4) is passed by the Commissioner cancelling the patta of a land, it would necessarily revert back to the State Government, also does not appeal to the Court. For ready reference Section 27 (4) (i) reads as follows : “Cancel the settlement and the lease, if any, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any instrument, the rights, title and interest of the person in whose favour such settlement was made or lease executed or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and such land shall revert to the State Government.” 17. If Section 27 (4) (i) is read in the manner as suggested by the learned standing counsel, it would mean that in all the cases where patta is cancelled (including the cases where the patta of the land is cancelled because of the reduction of area of surplus land of the tenure holder because of subsequent decision of Prescribed Authority/ appellate order or order passed by the High Court) the land would revert back to the State Government, such cannot be the legal position inasmuch as in the cases where the tenure holder is to get the benefit of land after cancellation of the patta, the land cannot revert back to the State Government and it has necessarily to remain available with the tenure holder for his use. 18. In the opinion of Court, the word ‘shall’ used before the word ‘revert’ in last sentence of the clause has necessarily to be read as ‘may’ and such an interpretation would make the section an effective and comprehensive remedy. 19. The said interpretation serves the purpose for which the power has been conferred, namely, the benefit of the person at whose instance the patta had been cancelled. 20. In the cases where there is procedural defect in the allotment because of which the patta is to be cancelled with no benefit to accrue in favour of the tenure holder, the land shall revert to the State Government for fresh allotment in accordance with law. While in the cases where the patta is cancelled because of acceptance of choice reduction of area in appeal or under orders of writ court, the benefit of the cancellation is to accrue to the tenure holder and as such, land has to revert back to tenure holder. Cases in second category of land being reverted back to the State Government would not defeat the purpose of the section. 21. Thus, the last sentence would be applicable only in the cases where the land, after cancellation of the patta continued available to the State Government for fresh allotment because of the procedural defect in the allotments made earlier. 22. Section 27 (4) (i) has to be read in a manner so as to make it effective remedy. 21. Thus, the last sentence would be applicable only in the cases where the land, after cancellation of the patta continued available to the State Government for fresh allotment because of the procedural defect in the allotments made earlier. 22. Section 27 (4) (i) has to be read in a manner so as to make it effective remedy. If an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 27 (4) cancelling a patta because of reduction in the surplus area of tenure holder, or because of acceptance of choice of tenure holder as has been done, in the facts of this case the land must necessarily revert back to tenure holder only and the State Government cannot claim any title over the said land. 23. Even otherwise the order passed by Prescribed Authority after remand dated 28.2.1995 accepting the choice of the petitioner having become final (as it was not challenged any further), has to be given effect to and the land left for use of the petitioner cannot be retained by the State Government. 24. In view of the aforesaid, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent are legally sustainable. 25. However, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that patta, which have been granted to respondent Nos. 3 to 40 in respect of village Siswa Goiti, is in respect of different proceedings taken against the petitioner and other such persons of village Siswa Goiti. It is also contended that the respondent Nos. 3 to 40 have been allotted land in respect of other villages also. Consequently, on the asking of the petitioner, the pattas of the respondent Nos. 3 to 40 cannot be cancelled as a whole. 26. Such disputed question of fact are required to be decided by the Commissioner under Section 27 (4) after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 27. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Commissioner dated 16th January, 1996 is hereby set aside. 28. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 27 (4) in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 29. It will be open to respondent Nos. 3 to 40 to contend before the Commissioner that the allotments made in their favour are legal and valid. 28. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 27 (4) in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 29. It will be open to respondent Nos. 3 to 40 to contend before the Commissioner that the allotments made in their favour are legal and valid. After considering the fact that the patta allotted to them is not covered by the present ceiling proceedings pertaining to petitioner, Commissioner shall decide the same in accordance with law. 30. The Commissioner shall undertake the aforesaid exercise at the earliest possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.