JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Writ Petition No. 19644 of 1985 In this writ petition an impleadment application bearing No. 83594 of 2011 has been filed on 15.3.2011 by four persons Raja Ram, Brij Lal, Smt. Rama Devi and Shiv Ram claiming bhumidhari right in land in dispute on the ground that petitioner had transferred the land in question to the father of the applicant No. 3 and other applicants through agreements dated 26.6.1952 and 14.7.1972. Agricultural land cannot be transferred through agreements. It can be transferred only through registered sale-deed. Names of applicants were never recorded in the revenue records. It is further stated in the impleadment application that some family settlement took place on 1.5.1974. That is also not registered and it was never filed anywhere except alongwith the impleadment application filed on 15.3.2011. Impleadment application being utterly frivolous is rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the following four points : (i) In the Khasras of 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli most of the plots were shown as un-irrigated. (ii) Sale-deeds of July 1972 were wrongly ignored. (iii) Family settlement of 1969 was wrongly ignored. (iv) Choice was wrongly ignored. It has also been argued that Section 14(3) of the Ceiling Act was deleted and hence choice could be given subsequently also. 3. In this writ petition, the only prayer initially made was that respondents might be directed to accept the choice of the petitioner as indicated in Annexure-6 to the writ petition and order of the respondent No. 2 might be quashed to the extent to which it rejected the choice of the petitioner. (However, through amendment application dated 26.10.2004 prayer for quashing Annexures-I and II to the writ petition has also been made.) In para 10 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that choice for leaving certain plots as surplus was given in 1980. Date is mentioned as 22, however as far as month is concerned, it is not clear, there is overwriting and it appears that typed figure of 10 is changed to 8 by pen. Annexure-III to the writ petition is a typed copy of the said application in which also the date is mentioned in the same manner with similar overwriting. Date is mentioned as 22, however as far as month is concerned, it is not clear, there is overwriting and it appears that typed figure of 10 is changed to 8 by pen. Annexure-III to the writ petition is a typed copy of the said application in which also the date is mentioned in the same manner with similar overwriting. In Para-7 of counter-affidavit it has been stated that the application for choice was given on 22.10.1980 and as possession had already been taken on 17.9.1980, it could not be considered. In the said application, it was mentioned that Prescribed Authority through order dated 13.8.1979 declared 48 Bighas of of petitioner’s land as surplus. It was further mentioned in the said application that petitioner had heard. On 8.10.1980 that surplus land was to be allotted to Harijans. The application could not therefore be filed in August, 1980. Accordingly, false statement has been made in Para-10 of the writ petition to the effect that application was filed before Prescribed Authority on 22.8.1980. The said application is under Section 13-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it raises the question of certain plots being un-irrigated also. In para 12 of this writ petition it is mentioned as follows : “That the petitioner is prepared to leave 48 Bighas of land which has been declared surplus provided the choice indicated by the petitioner which is enclosed as Annexure-6 to this writ petition is accepted.” In para 13 of this writ petition the only fact stated was that respondents ignoring the provisions of Section 12-A of the Act rejected the choice given by the petitioner even though the petitioner is still in actual physical cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. In Para-7 of the counter-affidavit in this writ petition, it has been stated that plots were declared as surplus vide order dated 8.11.1979 and State took possession on 17.9.1980. The said Para 7 is also quoted below : “That the contents of para 10 of the petition as stated are not admitted. It is further stated that the plots declared surplus vide order dated 8.11.1979 were final. It is also made clear that the State Government has taken possession of the land so declared surplus on 17.9.1980. The said Para 7 is also quoted below : “That the contents of para 10 of the petition as stated are not admitted. It is further stated that the plots declared surplus vide order dated 8.11.1979 were final. It is also made clear that the State Government has taken possession of the land so declared surplus on 17.9.1980. Thus there was no question to consider the choice application filed by the petitioner on 22.10.1980 in view of the fact that the prescribed authority had given the petitioner the option of choice application vide its order dated 5.6.1979 but the petitioner failed and as such the aforesaid order was passed.” 4. Thereafter, an amendment application was filed in this writ petition on 26.10.2004. Through the said amendment application prayer for quashing Annexures I and II to the writ petition was also sought to be added in the writ petition. Annexures I and II to the writ petition are orders passed by Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court rejecting the petitioner’ application filed under Section 13-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The said section deals with correction of errors. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it was merely a wrong description of the section and the said application was in fact under Section 11 of the Act. Annexure-I to the writ petition is order dated 8.1.1985 passed by Prescribed Authority in Case No. 60 of 1974. Against the said order two appeals were filed, one by the petitioner of this writ petition and the other by petitioner’s mother who is petitioner in the second writ petition. Number of the appeals were 67 of 1985 and 68 of 1985. Number of petitioner’s appeal was 68 of 1985. Both the appeals were dismissed by District Judge, Banda on 22.11.1985. The District Judge has mentioned that earlier the matter had been finalized twice. First through order dated 20.8.1976 passed by Prescribed Authority affirmed in Appeal No. 576 of 1976 dismissed on 17.11.1976. Thereafter one Jai Karan filed an application for compliance of Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules framed under the Act for preparing kurras and thereafter to declare surplus land of the tenure-holder co-sharer. Thereafter the said application was decided on 14.12.1976 which order was affirmed in Revenue Appeal No. 114 of 1977. 5. Thereafter one Jai Karan filed an application for compliance of Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules framed under the Act for preparing kurras and thereafter to declare surplus land of the tenure-holder co-sharer. Thereafter the said application was decided on 14.12.1976 which order was affirmed in Revenue Appeal No. 114 of 1977. 5. As all the points had earlier been decided and judgment of the appellate Court dated 17.11.1976 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 576 of 1976 was not challenged by the petitioner, hence it could not be reopened either under Section 13-A or under Section 11 or under any other provision of the Act vide “Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge” AIR 1999 SC 2264 . Each and every point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner was considered in the earlier proceedings which culminated in the judgment of the appellate Court dated 17.11.1976. Even otherwise no fresh point may be raised if it might be raised earlier. 6. The purpose of giving the opportunity to tenure-holder to give his choice of the surplus land is not to permit him to indefinitely delay the delivery of possession. Similarly same points cannot be permitted to be raised again and again otherwise ceiling proceedings will never come to an end. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Declared surplus land or part thereof has already been allotted to different persons. Petitioner is restrained from interfering in possession of allottees over the allotted portion of the declared surplus land and of the State on other portion of the declared surplus land of which possession was taken by the State and shall be deemed to be in possession of the State. The Court is constrained to observe that this writ petition is utter abuse of process of Court. The petitioner obtained interim order on insufficient grounds. Petitioner has already been dispossessed. Even if the allegation of the petitioner that on some portion of the surplus land he is in possession is correct, the possession is illegal. Writ Petition No. 54791 of 2004: 8. Petitioner is mother of Veer Pratap Singh petitioner in the first writ petition. After finalization of proceedings against her son, she filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act to the effect that sale-deed through which she purchased the property dated 17.7.1972 in respect of plot No. 6420, area 4 bighas 2 biswas was bona fide. Petitioner is mother of Veer Pratap Singh petitioner in the first writ petition. After finalization of proceedings against her son, she filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act to the effect that sale-deed through which she purchased the property dated 17.7.1972 in respect of plot No. 6420, area 4 bighas 2 biswas was bona fide. The matter was decided against the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority and the objections were dismissed on 8.1.1985. Thereafter she filed appeal being Revenue Appeal No. 67 of 1985. One appeal being Revenue Appeal No. 68 of 1985 had been filed by Veer Pratap Singh. Both appeals have been dismissed on 22.11.1985 by District Judge, Banda which order has been challenged through this writ petition. Regarding delay of 19 years, the explanation is given in para 36 of this writ petition, which is quoted below: “That it is also relevant to point here that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no limitation is provided. If the legal right of any person is being effected and legal injuries is caused the person who are effected he/she can seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from this Hon’ble Court.” This is no explanation in the eye of law. In this writ petition no effective order has yet been passed. Even counter-affidavit has not yet been called for. This writ petition being utterly barred by latches is dismissed as such. ——————