Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Yadav for the petitioners and Standing Counsel and Sri K. Ajit, for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed against the order of Additional Commissioner Administration dated 11.06.2010, canceling the patta of the petitioners dated 12.07.1967/28.07.1967, in the proceeding under Section 27 (4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The writ petition was decided after hearing the counsel for the parties by judgment dated 28.10.2013. This Court found that as Co-operative Farming Society was not included in the categories of persons enumerated under Section 198 (1) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the surplus land could not be allotted to petitioner-1, which is a Co-operative Farming Society under Section 27 (3) of the Act, as such when the mistake was noticed in the year 2009, suo moto cognizance was taken for cancellation of patta under Section 27 (4) of the Act, on 10.06.2010 and in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation would begin from the date when the mistake was noticed. Thus exercise of power was within limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) of the Act. On this ground the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this review application has been filed by the petitioners. 4. Through this review application, it is brought on record that Section 27 (3) of the Act was amended by The U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1969 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969) w.e.f. 01.09.1969. Prior to amendment, Section 27 (3) was as follows: Section 27 (3).- Any surplus land remaining unsettled under the provisions of the preceding sub-section may be settled by the State Government- (a) If the remaining land is less than 16 acres in the village, with a co-operative society of such tenure holders at least three fourths of whom are holders of less that 3-1/8 acre of land each; and (b) if the remaining land is more than 15 acres in the village with a co-operative society of landless agricultural labourers , so however that the total land allotted to such society, under this clause, if equally divided between all the members would give to each one not more than 3-1/8 acres of land. (4) Any surplus land remaining after settlement under clause (b) of sub-section (3) may be settled by State Government with any co-operative society no member whereof prior to such settlement holds more than 3-1/8 acres of land in his own right 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment proceeded on the premises that under Section 27 (3) of the Act, surplus land could not be allotted to a co-operative society as such judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of record as in this case allotment was made on 12.07.1967/28.07.1967 and at that time land could have been allotted to co-operative society under Section 27 (3) of the Act. As such judgment is liable to be reviewed. In order to decide the review application facts of the case is noted briefly. 6. 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. 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 bona fide 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 motu powers under Section 27 (4) of the Act. 7. 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, cancelling 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. 8. 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. 8. 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. 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 motu 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. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties as examined the record. Section 27 (6) provides limitation of seven years for initiating proceeding for cancellation of patta under Section 27 (4), where patta was granted prior to November, 10, 1980. This limitation has been provided for exercise of suo moto power as well as on the application of the aggrieved person as held by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (100) RD 266. This limitation has been provided for exercise of suo moto power as well as on the application of the aggrieved person as held by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (100) RD 266. In this case patta was granted on 28.07.1967 while suo moto power for cancellation of patta was exercised on 10.06.2010, long after expiry of the period of limitation, for which the Commissioner had no jurisdiction. The order dated 11.06.2010 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the review application is allowed. The judgment dated 28.10.2013 dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the order of Additional Commissioner Administration, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, dated 11.06.2010, canceling the patta of the petitioners is set aside. _____________