JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1960’) were initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company, Seorahi, District-Deoria culminating in an order dated 14th November, 1967 declaring certain plots owned and in possession of the said company as surplus. Alongwith the order, the specific plots, which were declared surplus, were detailed in Annexure-1 to the order. This order of 1967 was not subjected to any challenge. At least from the records it is clear that the same is final, so far as the sugar company is concerned. In the list of the surplus land, disclosed in Annexure-1 to the order, plot No. 14, village-Domath, Pargana-Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil-Padrauna, District-Deoria, total area 29.39 acres was mentioned amongst others. The possession of the surplus land was taken and a gazette notification under Section 14 of the Act, 1960 was published on 15.1.1972. In the gazette notification, amongst other, plot No. 14, total area 29.39 acres was shown as the surplus land, possession whereof has been taken and had vested in the State Government. 2. According to paragraph 8 of the present writ petition, the petitioners, who are three in number, filed objections under Section 14(3) of the Act, 1960 (as was applicable on the relevant date) against the inclusion of Plot No. 14 in the gazette notification. Admittedly, such objection under Section 14(3) could be filed only in respect of plots, which are shown as surplus in the gazette notification issued under Section 14. Therefore, from the own showing of the petitioners such objection could have been in respect of plot No. 14 only, as petitioners did not claim any relief qua any other plot noticed in the gazette notification, nor such objections could have been qua a plot not so mentioned in the gazette notification. It is repeated that no objections under Section 14(3) of Act, 1960 can be filed or could be entertained qua a plot not mentioned in the gazette notification issued under Section 14. 3. According to the petitioner these objections under Section 14(3) were allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 7.3.1973 and it was held that the land, which was declared surplus could not be so taken as it was the holding of the petitioners. 4. 3. According to the petitioner these objections under Section 14(3) were allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 7.3.1973 and it was held that the land, which was declared surplus could not be so taken as it was the holding of the petitioners. 4. What logically follows is that, if the statement made by the petitioner is correct, the Prescribed Authority held that plot No. 14 (area 29.39 Acres) was the holding of the petitioners and such plot could not be taken as surplus in pursuance to the ceiling proceedings initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company. 5. It is specifically contended before this Court by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 7.3.1973 has become final. This leads to only one conclusion in the opinion of the Court that the petitioners stood declared as holders of plot No. 14 (total area 29.39 acres) and such land could not be taken as surplus land by the State Government on the strength of ceiling proceedings initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company. 6. From the records it clear that the Prescribed Authority was informed that in the order dated 14.16.1967 passed against the U.P. Sugar Company instead of plot No. 4 in the Schedule-1 to the order dated 14.11.1967, inadvertently Plot No. 14 had been mentioned. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, called for the records and passed a reasoned order on 18th June, 1973 correcting the said clerical mistake. It has been categorically recorded that in the ceiling proceedings initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company plot No. 14 was never a subject matter of such proceedings and plot No. 4 was all through subject matter of such ceiling against the U.P. Sugar Company. He, therefore, held that there was a typing error in the number of plot mentioned in Schedule-1 to the order dated 14th November, 1967, and therefore necessary correction was made accordingly. 7. After corrections were made, a fresh notification for publication in official gazette was forwarded to the Superintendent, Government Press, Allahabad on 25.11.1975. In all likelihood the gazette must have been published, the writ petition is completely silent about the publication of the gazette notification after the order of correction so issued. 8. What is stated next is that the petitioners before this Court, after the publication of the official gazette dated 12.1.1972, were informed that their Plot No. 4 may be taken possession of. 8. What is stated next is that the petitioners before this Court, after the publication of the official gazette dated 12.1.1972, were informed that their Plot No. 4 may be taken possession of. Therefore, they filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B that they were the Sirdar of Plot No. 4. The suit, according to the petitioner, was decreed by the trial Court under the judgment and order dated 13.3.1973. 9. An application was made by Janak Dubey for recall of the judgment dated 13.3.1973, which was granted under an order dated 14th June, 1973 and the judgment dated 13.3.1973 was recalled. Against the order dated 14th June, 1973 the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The Commissioner by means of order dated 18th June, 1973 made a reference, for recall of the order dated 14th June, 1973 and the order dated 13.3.1973 being restored, to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference. Accordingly the order dated 14.6.1973 was set aside and the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1973 in favour of the petitioners under Section 229-B was maintained. 10. On these allegations the petitioners on 7.1.1976 made an application for recall of the order dated 18th June, 1973. The Prescribed Authority, treating the application as objections under Section 10(2) of Act, 1960, vide order dated 11.8.1976 allowed the said application and recalled the order dated 18th June, 1973. It was further directed that Plot No. 4 was not to be treated as surplus land qua the ceiling proceedings taken against U.P. Sugar Company. However, no other land of the U.P. Sugar Company was declared as surplus. 11. The order dated 11.8.1976 on the face of it is a non-speaking order and it does not deal with any of the issues, as were considered in the detailed order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18th June, 1973. 12. Against the order dated 11.8.1976 the State of U.P. filed an application for a review /recall of the order dated 11.8.1976. The application made by the Collector was allowed vide order dated 23.7.1977 and the order dated 11.8.1976 was quashed. 13. An appeal was filed against the order dated 23.7.1977 by the petitioners, which was allowed by the appellate authority on 7.11.1977 and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to pass afresh order on the objections made by the petitioners. 14. 13. An appeal was filed against the order dated 23.7.1977 by the petitioners, which was allowed by the appellate authority on 7.11.1977 and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to pass afresh order on the objections made by the petitioners. 14. The Prescribed Authority on 23.5.1978 passed an order, maintaining the order dated 18.6.1973, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners. The appeal was allowed for the second time and the matter was again remanded with the direction that the application made by the petitioners dated 7.1.1976 be considered after hearing both the parties (Reference-page 35 of the paper-book). 15. Accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioners as well as State. The application dated 7.1.1976 made by the petitioners was reconsidered by the Prescribed Authority under his order dated 23.5.1985. The Prescribed Authority amongst other recorded that despite sufficient opportunity to the objectors they are not present. He is, therefore, proceeding to consider the application made by the petitioners dated 7.1.1976 in their absence. It was held by the Prescribed Authority that the order dated 18th June, 1973 directing correction to be made in the Schedule appended to the order dated 14.11.1967 qua the surplus land of the U.P. Sugar Company was referable to the powers vested in the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 1960. The Prescribed Authority held that the entire claim set up by the petitioners in their objections was based upon a decree obtained under Section 229-B dated 13.3.1973. Such declaration will not in any way affect the ceiling proceedings, which had been taken against the U.P. Sugar Company in respect of the plot in question, being subsequent to the relevant date under the Act, 1960. It has further been recorded that on the relevant date Janak Dubey and others were not recorded as tenure holder of Plot No. 4, as per their own admission, therefore, held that there has been on procedural infirmity in the proceedings taken against the U.P. Sugar Company nor any notice was required to be issued to petitioners under Section 10, as was being claimed by them. After recording the aforesaid finding, the objections dated 7.1.1973 have been rejected. 16. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed Appeal No. 133/198/D-1985. The appeal has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner under the order dated 15th April, 1987. 17. After recording the aforesaid finding, the objections dated 7.1.1973 have been rejected. 16. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed Appeal No. 133/198/D-1985. The appeal has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner under the order dated 15th April, 1987. 17. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 18. Before this Court four issues have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner (a) the order dated 7.3.1973 passed under Section 14(3) of the Act, 1960 had become final between the parties and therefore the impugned orders are illegal. (b) that the application made by the petitioners were objections referable to Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act and have been so treated by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners were in possession of the plot in question on the relevant date and therefore they were entitled to a notice, which aspect of the matter has completely been ignored, (c) since the petitioners have been declared as Sirdar of the land in question vide a decree of the competent Court under Section 229-B, the plot No. 4 could not have been treated to be the holding of the U.P. Sugar Company and therefore cannot be taken as surplus land and lastly (d) subsequently during consolidation proceedings the aforesaid land has been treated to be the property of the petitioner and Chak allotments have been made accordingly. 19. So far as the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, as already noticed above, in the gazette notification dated 15.1.1972, issued under Section 14 of Act, 1960 in pursuance to the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14.11.1967, Plot No. 14 was shown as surplus land, qua which the petitioners claimed to be land holder and in possession. Plot No. 4 was not included in the said gazette notification dated 15.1.1972 and therefore at that stage no objections under Section 14(3) of the Act, 1960 could be filed nor could be expected to be filed by the petitioners qua Plot No. 4. What necessarily follows is that petitioners must have filed their objections to the inclusion of Plot No. 14 in the Schedule-1 i. e. surplus land declared vide order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14th November, 1967. Such objections of the petitioners were admittedly allowed vide order dated 7.3.1973 (Reference- paragraph 8 of the writ petition). What necessarily follows is that petitioners must have filed their objections to the inclusion of Plot No. 14 in the Schedule-1 i. e. surplus land declared vide order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14th November, 1967. Such objections of the petitioners were admittedly allowed vide order dated 7.3.1973 (Reference- paragraph 8 of the writ petition). Meaning thereby that the petitioners were held to be the tenure holder and in possession of Plot No. 14. Prima facie for this reason the petitioners have not brought on record of this writ petition their objections or the order passed thereon and only allegations in that regard (in paragraph 8 of writ petition) have been made. Therefore, the order dated 7.3.1973 relied upon by the petitioners has absolutely no bearing, so far as the plot No. 4 being declared as surplus land in the proceedings initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company is concerned. 20. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, this Court may record that the objections were filed by the petitioners only on 7.1.1976 i. e. after they obtained a decree for declaration that they are the Sirdar of plot No. 4. At no point of time prior to it any objection was filed by the petitioners qua Plot No. 4. The Prescribed Authority in its order dated 23.5.1985 rightly held that there was no procedural defect in the proceedings initiated against the U.P. Sugar Company under the Ceiling Act because of notice having not been issued to the petitioners, inasmuch as on the relevant date they were not the recorded tenure holder over the plot in question. It is further not clear from the records of the present writ petition as to whether in the suit filed by the petitioners, for declaration qua they being the Sirdar of Plot No. 4, State or the U.P. or U.P. Sugar Company was made a party to the proceedings or not. This Court has no hesitation to record that any decree obtained by the petitioners under Section 229-B of they being the Sirdar, in absence of parties to the suit being brought on record, cannot be said to be binding upon the State or U.P. Sugar Company. 21. This Court has no hesitation to record that any decree obtained by the petitioners under Section 229-B of they being the Sirdar, in absence of parties to the suit being brought on record, cannot be said to be binding upon the State or U.P. Sugar Company. 21. In any view of the matter the authorities appear to be justified in holding that it is only after the declaration was obtained by the petitioner that they have chosen to file objection in respect of plot No. 4 in the year 1976 when the ceiling proceedings against the U.P. Sugar Company itself stood concluded in the year 1967 i. e. nearly 9 years earlier. The authorities are also right in recording that it was within the competence of the Prescribed Authority to make necessary correction in the Schedule attached to the order of 1967 vide order dated 18.6.1973 qua surplus land, in view of the power vested in the authority under Section 13 (2) of the Act. For the purpose the reasons recorded in the order dated 7.3.1973 are that Plot No. 14 was never a part of the proceedings against the Sugar Company at any point of time and it was only Plot No. 4 which was subject matter of ceiling proceedings all through. There was a clerical error in the Schedule-1 attached to the order dated 14.11.1967, which did need correction. Such reasons are strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, the second issue is also answered against the petitioner. 22. So far as the third submission made on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it may be noticed that on the relevant date the petitioners were not the recorded tenure holder and they did not raise any objection to the proceedings taken against the U.P. Sugar Company claiming any right over the Plot No. 4 in question within reasonable time. It is too late in the day to permit them to get the entire proceedings taken against U.P. Sugar Company reopened when notification under Section 14 has been published, in respect of the surplus land and after clerical correction qua the plot number has been made. More so, when from the facts on record it is apparent that the petitioners were aware of the ceiling proceedings against the U.P. Sugar Company all along (reference Para 8 of the writ petition). More so, when from the facts on record it is apparent that the petitioners were aware of the ceiling proceedings against the U.P. Sugar Company all along (reference Para 8 of the writ petition). Even otherwise it is not the case of the petitioners that they were holders of both Plot No. 14 and Plot No. 4. It appears that the objections have been made only to install the ceiling proceedings taken against the Sugar Company. Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the objections filed on 7.1.1976 could be referable to Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960. The third contention is also answered in negative. 23. So far as the last submission made on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, suffice is to record that the consolidation proceedings have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition and as such the consolidation proceedings have to abide by the orders to be passed in the ceiling proceedings. 24. Accordingly, none of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners appeals to the Court. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. —————