JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Yadav, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Goswami, Standing Counsel and Sri K. Ajit, for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner Administration, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 11.06.2010, canceling the patta dated 12.07.1967 of the petitioners, in the proceedings under Section 27 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Rashtriya Bhumiheen Khetihar Majdur Sahkari Kheti Samiti, Rampur (petitioner-1) is Co-operative Farming Society, registered on 14.06.1966, under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. On the application of the petitioners, Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampur submitted a report dated 12.07.1967, for allotment of surplus land of plot nos. 22 (area 44-7-6 bigha), 50 (area 0-5-10 bigha) and 51 (area 0-1-0 bigha) (total area 44-13-16 bigha) of village Aghapur Ticket Ganj, tahsil and district Rampur to petitioner-1. In pursuance of the report dated 12.07.1967, the patta dated 28.07.1967 of the aforesaid plots was executed in favour of the petitioners under Section 27 and 28 of the Act read with Rule 59. Saligram and ten other persons of the village, claiming themselves as the persons living below the poverty line and belonging to schedule caste community and eligible for allotment of the land, filed an application dated 25.08.2009 under Section 27 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the patta. It has been stated in the application that the surplus land has been allotted to the petitioners secretly. Petitioner-1 is a forged society of the rich persons and none of the members of the society were farmer. They are big businessmen, contractors etc. Some of them are permanently residing in foreign and not eligible for allotment of the land. The registration certificate of the petitioner society has also been cancelled. The petitioners have sold the soil of the land allotted to them and made a big pit in the agricultural land. Thus they are not using the land for agricultural purpose but for commercial purpose. Under wrong legal advice, the applicants filed an application for setting aside the mutation of the name of the petitioners, before the Revenue Court and were bonafide contesting there. Thus they are not using the land for agricultural purpose but for commercial purpose. Under wrong legal advice, the applicants filed an application for setting aside the mutation of the name of the petitioners, before the Revenue Court and were bonafide contesting there. The Collector, Rampur also submitted a report dated 28.08.2009 to the effect that the petitioners, in violation of the terms of the patta, had sold the soil of the land allotted to them. On this report, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) by order dated 04.11.2009, impleaded State of U.P. as an applicant in the application of Saligram and others and proceeded to exercise suo moto powers under Section 27 (4) of the Act. 4. The petitioners contested aforesaid application and filed their reply on 23.12.2009. It has been stated by the petitioners that the applicants had no locus standi to file any application for cancellation of the patta. The application filed by State of U.P. for cancellation of the patta has already been dismissed by Additional Collector on 26.06.2009. The surplus land has been duly settled with the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer, according to the provisions of Section 27 (3) of the Act on 12.07.1967/28.07.1967. A pond has been dig in the land in dispute to preserve the rain water, for the purposes of irrigating of the crops in the remaining area of the land and the allegations that soil has been sold was incorrect. Their appeal was pending against the order, canceling the registration certificate of the petitioner society. The application filed under Section 27 (4) of the Act was highly time barred. Sirdari right has been granted to the petitioners through the patta dated 28.07.1967. Under the Government Order dated 14.01.1995, the petitioners have acquired bhumidhari right over the land allotted to them. 5. The petitioners moved an application dated 20.02.2010 for framing issues regarding maintainability of the application and limitation for initiation of the proceedings and deciding the preliminary issues. Additional Commissioner (Administration), by order dated 31.05.2010, rejected the application and directed the petitioners to adduce their evidence. Thereafter the evidence of the applicants were recorded. The petitioners did not co-operate with the proceedings and absented on the dates fixed in the case. Additional Commissioner (Administration), by order dated 31.05.2010, rejected the application and directed the petitioners to adduce their evidence. Thereafter the evidence of the applicants were recorded. The petitioners did not co-operate with the proceedings and absented on the dates fixed in the case. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 11.06.2010 held that as the Collector submitted report dated 29.08.2009 for cancellation of patta, on which suo moto cognizance was taken as such limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Act will not apply as held by Full Bench of Board of Revenue in Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1994 RD 540. The area of the land allotted to the petitioners was 27.17 acre as such under Section 27 (1) of the Act, the surplus land being more than 15 acres ought to have been allotted for community purpose. It is only after complying the provision of Sub-Section (1) of Section 27, the collector was competent to allot the surplus land under Sub-Section (3) of Section 27. In the present case, Sub-Divisional Officer has illegally allotted the land in dispute to the petitioners, in violation of Section 27 (1) of the Act. The petitioners have also contravened the terms of patta and sold the soil of the land for which proceedings for recovery of the royalty of Rs. 9,39,912/- has also been initiated against them under U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules. The registration certificate of the petitioners society has also been cancelled. On these findings, patta in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled by order dated 11.06.2010. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner-1 is Co-operative Farming Society and was duly incorporated and registered on 14.06.1966, under U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The order of Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, U.P. dated 24.08.2009, canceling the Registration Certificate of the petitioner society has been set aside by this Court by order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Writ-C No. 2901 of 2010. The present status of the members of the petitioner society is irrelevant for considering the application for cancellation of the patta dated 28.07.1967. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (100) RD 266 , he submitted that under Section 27 (6) (a) of the Act, 7 years limitation has been provided for initiating proceeding for cancellation of the patta. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (100) RD 266 , he submitted that under Section 27 (6) (a) of the Act, 7 years limitation has been provided for initiating proceeding for cancellation of the patta. In the present case, patta was granted on 28.07.1967 as such the application for cancellation of patta as well as exercising suo moto power for cancellation of the patta in the year 2009 was long barred by limitation and Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order. By the patta dated 28.07.1967, the petitioners were granted sirdari rights and they have acquired bhumidhari right under Section 131 (d) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, w.e.f. 01.07.1981. The petitioners dig a pond, in the land in dispute to preserve the rain water, for the purposes of irrigating of the crops in the remaining area of the land. The government have also launched scheme for preservation of rain waters. A bhumidhar has right to use the land for other agricultural purpose. The allegations that soil has been sold was incorrect. Entire soil which was taken for digging the pond is on the spot and the petitioners are contesting the proceedings for recovery of the royalty. The order of the Additional Commissioner is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Two main issues arise for consideration for this Court are: - (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 27 (4) for cancellation of the patta dated 28.07.1967, after 7 years of limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) (a) of the Act? and (ii) Whether allotment of the surplus land to the petitioners under Section 27 (3) was legal? 8. So far as the issue relating to the limitation is concerned, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner has exercised his suo moto powers under Section 27 (4) of the Act by order dated 11.06.2010. and (ii) Whether allotment of the surplus land to the petitioners under Section 27 (3) was legal? 8. So far as the issue relating to the limitation is concerned, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner has exercised his suo moto powers under Section 27 (4) of the Act by order dated 11.06.2010. Relevant provisions relating to the limitation are quoted below: - Section 27 (6) : - The Commissioner acting on his own motion under sub-section (4) may issue notice, and an application under that sub-section may be made,- (a) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted before November 10, 1980, before the expiry of period of Seven years from the said date; and 9. By virtue of Section 42 of the Act, the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have been applied to all the proceedings, including the proceedings in appeals, applications and objections under the Act. By using the word "may issue notice" under Section 27 (6) of the Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been specifically exluded either under Section 27 (6) or under Section 44 of the Act. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which relevant is quoted below: "Section 29. Savings.-- (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 10. Supreme Court in D.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narayan Sharma, (1970) 2 SCC 369 and Lata Kamat v. Vilas, (1989) 2 SCC 613 held that Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where the limitation provided by the special or local law is different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 and the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 shall apply, so far and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by the special or local law. Similer view has been taken by Full Bench of this Court in R. K. Singh vs. D.D.C. and others, 1974 ALJ 834 (F.B.). Full Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P. in Virender Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1994 RD 540, relying upon this Full Bench judgment of this Court held that for exercising suo moto powers for cancellation of patta under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, no limitation will apply. 11. By virtue of Section 29 (2), Sections 3 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings under the Act. Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that in case of fraud or mistake the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the applicant has discovered the fraud or mistake. The present case was of the mistake. It is only in the year 2009, the mistake was noticed on the application moved by Saligram and others and suo moto cognizance has been taken on 11.06.2010 as such it cannot be said that due to expiry of limitation, Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the matter. 12. Admittedly, patta in this case was granted to petitioner-1 which is Co-operative Farming Society and not to the members of the society. Under Section 27 (1) State Government is required to settle the land to community purpose as in the present case area of the surplus land was more than 15 acre. Under Section 27 (3), the Collector is authorized to allot the land according to the provisions of Section 198 (1) and (3) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Section 198 (1) of the Act lays down order of preference for allot the land, in which, Co-operative Farming Society does not find place. In such circumstances, allotment of the land to the petitioners was contrary to the provisions of Section 27 (1) and (3) of the Act and has rightly been canceled. This Court has not gone in to the issue of illegal digging of the soil. This issue is left to be decided before the appropriate forum. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.