JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is a school. It was higher secondary school when writ petition was filed and was also imparting education in agriculture upto Class VIII as stated in para 2 of the writ petition. 3.14 acre of agricultural land which had been declared as surplus with some other tenure holders and had vested in State under U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act 1960 was allotted to the petitioner school under Section 27(3) of the Ceiling Act on 30.10.1971. The school was already having 5 acre of land before the allotment of the land in dispute to it. Thereafter, proceedings for cancellation of the allotment under Section 27(4) of the Act were initiated by the Commissioner in the year 1983 through case No. 5/114B/82/83 under Section 27(4) Ceiling Act District Rampur State v. Choudhary Jamna Das Junior High School, Math Khera, District Rampur. The said case was allowed on 6.2.1986 by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Moradabad and the allotment of 3.14 acre land in favour of the petitioner of khasra plot No. 10(1.01 acre) and Khasra plot No. 16(2.13) acre total 3.14 acre was cancelled. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. It is mentioned in the impugned order that proceedings were initiated on the basis of report of S.D.O. Swar, dated 4.11.1982. Petitioner filed objections on 19.9.1984 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) contending inter alia that after 10.11.1982 proceedings could not be initiated in the sense that after the said date notice for initiating the proceedings could not be issued. 3. Date of the notice is not mentioned in the writ petition. However, it is mentioned that it was issued in the year 1983. From the perusal of the impugned order also it is clear that notice was issued in 1983, however, date is not mentioned. 4. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were barred by time. Initially, under Section 27(6) of the Ceiling Act it was provided that notice could be issued or application could be made (for cancellation of allotment) “in the case of any settlement made or lease granted before November 10,1980, before the expiry of 2 years from the said date”. The said provision was substituted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982, Section 22 (w.e.f. 10.11.1980). The said provision was substituted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982, Section 22 (w.e.f. 10.11.1980). In view of the said provision proceedings were barred by time as notice had been issued after 10.11.1982. However, the word ‘two years’ were later on substituted by the word ‘seven years’ and it was further provided that it should be deemed always to have been substituted. The said amendment was made by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986 Section 20 w.e.f. 20.8.1982. The amendment Act received the assent of the President on 28.11.1986 i.e. after passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, the proceedings were barred by time when notice was given in 1983, as well as till 6.2.1986 when impugned order was passed. The reasoning given by Additional Commissioner in the impugned order that proceedings were within time as S.D.O. had given report before 10.11.1982 i.e. on 4.11.1982 is not correct. Notice had to be issued before 10.11.1982 which was not done. What will be the effect of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986, Section 20 on such matters? I do not propose to decide this question in this writ petition as this petition can be decided on other points. 5. The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that two notices should have been issued one under Section 27(4) and the other 27(6) of the Ceiling Act and proceedings initiated only on one notice were without jurisdiction. This argument is utterly devoid of any merit. It has been so held in Inerman v. Additional Comissioner Bareilly, 2002 (49) ALR 152. Sub Section (4) of Section 27 of the Ceiling Act empowers the Commissioner to cancel the settlement and the lease and sub Section (6) of the said section prescribes the limitation for issuing notice or making application for cancellation. 6. Learned standing counsel has argued that allotment cannot be made to a school as for making allotment provisions of Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act have to be followed by virtue of Section 27(3) of the Ceiling Act. However, this argument of learned standing counsel is also not tenable. It is correct that at present allotment cannot be made to a school or to any other entity which is not natural person as provided under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. However, in the year 1971 the position was different. However, this argument of learned standing counsel is also not tenable. It is correct that at present allotment cannot be made to a school or to any other entity which is not natural person as provided under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. However, in the year 1971 the position was different. Through U.P. Land Laws(Amendment) Act 1970, U.P. Act No. 35 of 1970 Section 198 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act was amended and the top priority for allotment was given to educational institution imparting education in agriculture. The said provision was deleted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975. Accordingly, in 1971 there was no bar against allotment of land to a school. 7. Earlier on 13.7.1976 S.D.O. Swar had refused to cancel or to send recommendation to the Commissioner for cancellation of the patta holding that the allotment was valid. In the impugned order learned additional Commissioner rightly held that as S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to cancel patta hence his order dated 13.7.1976 was meaningless. 8. The learned Additional Commissioner in the impugned order accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the school petitioner that there was no limit of area of land which could be allotted to a school. However, he held that as the school was already having 5 acre land hence it was not shown that it required more land. In para 7 of the impugned order it was held that at least 0.75 acre land was being used for non agricultural purposes. It was also held that it was not shown that the remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes. It was also observed in the same para that prospectus etc. was not filed which could show that education in agriculture was being imparted. It was further held that mere fact that in the allotted land agriculture was being done did not prove that it was being used for giving training in agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry. 9. In para 8 it is mentioned that before allotment neither applications from other schools were invited nor any inquiry was made regarding the purposes of the institution and it appeared that the land was allotted merely on the ground that it was adjacent to the school. It was further held that for construction of school building or for play ground ceiling land could not be allotted. Ultimately through the impugned order allotment was cancelled. 10. It was further held that for construction of school building or for play ground ceiling land could not be allotted. Ultimately through the impugned order allotment was cancelled. 10. The view of the additional Commissioner that allotment was bad as it was not shown that research in agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry was being conducted by the school is not correct. Under Section 198(1) (a) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act as it remained on the statute book from 1970 to 1975 it was provided as under: “any educational institution recognised by the director of education Uttar Pradesh or by the Board of High School and Intermediate education Uttar Pradeh or by a University and imparting instructions in or providing for research in agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry”. 11. The view of the Additional Commissioner that allotment to petitioner was bad as applications from other eligible institutions were not invited is also not correct. There was no provision regarding invitation of such applications. More over no other deserving educational institution made any complaint. 12. Even though the proceedings may be held to be within time retrospectively, however, when proceedings were initiated and decided they were not within time. If the irregularities in allotment are not major and substantial, it is not always essential to cancel the allotment particularly when the proceedings are initiated very late. 13. In view of above quoted Section 198(1)(a) which remained on the statute book from 1970 to 1975 it was not necessary that the allotment shall be for using the entire allotted land for the purposes of agriculture etc. Accordingly, the view of the Additional Commissioner that as the entire land was not being used for imparting education in agriculture hence the allotment was liable to be cancelled is not correct. If the school was imparting education in agriculture then land could be allotted for the purposes of imparting education in agricultural and for other purposes of the school like construction of building play ground etc. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is set aside, however, petitioner is restrained from using the allotted land for any other purposes except connected with the school and for the purposes connected with imparting education in agriculture. The school shall never transfer the land in dispute nor use it for any commercial purposes.