JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Arya Shresth Tiwari, learned Additional CSC for the petitioner - State and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the intervenor. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by respondent No.6 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition and to restore the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority contained as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-99 passed by opp. party no.6 in appeal No.57; Pateshwar Verma & others- Versus - State of U.P and others, including No.508/5-350 hectares (13- 173 acres) irrigated land from the surplus land declared by the prescribed authority vide order dated 27-03-1999. Certified Copy of the order dated 14-10-99 passed by opp. party no.6, is annexed as Annexure No.1 and the true copy of the order dated 27-03-1999 passed by Prescribed Authority is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, respectively. 4. The notices under section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Ceiling Act) was issued to original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh, predecessor-in- interest of opp. party no.4 and 5 and objection was filed by the original tenure holder. True copy of the objection filed by the original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh dated 30/31-8-94 is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. 5. The original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh had taken specific plea in his objection dated 30/31-8-91 to the effect that plot no.508/5-350 hectares (13-173 acres) had wrongly been clubbed with the holding of the objector as the said plot belong to Pradeep Singh son of Jagdeep Singh. 6. Learned Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 31-03-1994 rejected the objection of the original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh and held that plot no.508 has rightly been included in the holding of Shri Bhagwan Singh. True copy of the order dated 31-03-1994 passed by Prescribed Authority is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 7. It is relevant to point out that the specific issue regarding title of Bhagwan Singh over plot no.508 situate in village Bargadaha has become final as this issue was not challenged at any forum. 8. True copy of the order dated 31-03-1994 passed by Prescribed Authority is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 7. It is relevant to point out that the specific issue regarding title of Bhagwan Singh over plot no.508 situate in village Bargadaha has become final as this issue was not challenged at any forum. 8. Opposite party no.1 to 3 preferred appeal No. 115 under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act Anwar Alam and others Versus State of U.P. and learned opp. party no.6 by means of order dated 29-01-1997 set aside the order of Prescribed Authority dated 31-10-1994 and remanded the case for decision afresh. True copy of the order dated 31-10-1991 is annexed as Annexure No.5 and true copy of the order passed by Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 29-01-1997 is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. 9. Opposite party no.1 to 3 filed writ petition No.79 of 1995 Anwar alam & others-Versus- Addl. Commissioner and others and the Hon'ble High Court by means of order dated 21-06-1995 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellate court to pass appropriate order in the appeal. True copy of the order dated 21-06-1995 is annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. 10. The final order was passed by the appellate court on 29-01-1997 as indicated above, remanding the case for decision afresh. The Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 27-03-1999 rejected the claim of opp. party nos.l to 3 and held that plot no.508/5-350 hectares shall be excluded from the surplus area and the deficiency be made good from the other plots held by the original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh. 11. It is stated that the order dated 27-03-1999 causes no substantial injury to the petitioner as the area comprising plot no.508 was made good by other plot of the original tenure holder as indicated above. True copy of the order dated 27-09-1999 is on record as Annexure No.2 to this Writ Petition. 12. Being aggrieved from the order dated 27-03-1999, opp. party nos.l to 3 filed Appeal No. 57. Anwar Alam & others-Versus- State of U.P. and learned opp. True copy of the order dated 27-09-1999 is on record as Annexure No.2 to this Writ Petition. 12. Being aggrieved from the order dated 27-03-1999, opp. party nos.l to 3 filed Appeal No. 57. Anwar Alam & others-Versus- State of U.P. and learned opp. party no.6 vide order dated 14-10-1999 set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27-03-1999 and excluded plot no.508 situated in village Bargadaha from the holding of the original tenure holder and reduced the surplus area to the extent of 13-173 acres in terms of irrigated Iand. Certified copy of the order dated 14-10-1999 is already on record as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. 13. The copy of the order dated 14-10-1999 was received in the office of Collector, Shravasti on 29-10-1999. It is stated that the Collector got the check list prepared and referred the matter to the D.G.C. (Civil) for legal opinion and the legal opinion was received in the office of Collector, Shravasti on 27-4-2000. The Collector, Shravanti referred the matter to the Law Department for granting of permission to file writ petition at the earliest opportunity and the Law Department issued G.O. dated 20-07-2000 directing to Collector, Shravasti to file writ petition against the order dated 14-10-1999. 14. The Collector wrote letter dated 18-07-2001 and 08-10-2002 to the Chief Standing Counsel requesting to file writ petition against the order dated 14-10-1999 and instructed the Pairokar namely Shri Mani Ram Verma, Naib Tahsildar (Ceiling) to contact the office of Chief Standing Counsel, High Court. It is stated that Naib Tahsildar (Ceiling) approached the office of Chief Standing Counsel on 08-10-2002. The case was allotted to Law Officer and the Law Officer instructed Shri Mani Ram Verma, Naib Tahsildar to bring the record of the Ceiling proceedings. However, the record was not traceable and the draft of the writ petition could not be prepared. It is stated that the Collector, Shravasti enquired about the progress of the writ petition and instructed Shri Mani Ram Verma, Naib Tahsildar to look into the matter and approach the Chief Standing Counsel to get the writ petition filed. It is stated that Shri Mani Ram Verma approached the office of Chief Standing Counsel on 08-10-2002 and the office of Chief Standing Counsel assigned the case to the Law Officer. It is stated that Shri Mani Ram Verma approached the office of Chief Standing Counsel on 08-10-2002 and the office of Chief Standing Counsel assigned the case to the Law Officer. Shri Mani Ram Verma traced the record of the ceiling proceedings and contacted the Law Officer alongwith the record. The Law Officer dictated the Writ petition on 23-10-2002 and the same is being filed at the earliest opportunity. 15. Submission of learned Additional CSC is that the Will Deed was not produced and was not examined by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate court, therefore, the impugned order vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside. 16. He next submitted that the land adjusted in the land of Bhagwan Singh is grobe and no error has been committed by the authority concerned. The Will Deed executed was not examined therefore, there is suspicion in regard to will deed of Pradeep Singh. He pointed out that in the objection, there is averment that the Will Deed was executed on 06.12.1990, therefore, it cannot be taken into account and is suspicious in nature. 17. He next submitted that learned opp. party no.6, committed error of law apparent on the face of the record and acted illegally and with material irregularity in ignoring the fact that the question of title regarding plot no.508/5-350 hectarees had been finally settled by the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 31-10-1994 which had become final and binding as res judicata. 18. He submitted that learned opp. party no.6, acted illegally and with material irregularity in relying upon the alleged Will-deed without considering the genuineness and admissibility of the same resulting in substantial injury to the petitioner. 19. He further submitted that learned opp. party no.6, committed error of law apparent on the face of the record in acting upon the alleged Will- deed dated 06-12-1990 which was executed during the pendency of ceiling proceeding and was liable to be ignored under Section 5(6) and 5(8) of the Ceiling Act. The judgement and order passed by opp. party no.6, is based on conjuctures and surmises and is perverse and illegal. 20. The judgement and order passed by opp. party no.6, is based on conjuctures and surmises and is perverse and illegal. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the will deed was produced and was examined and has taken notice in the impugned orders therefore the submission advanced by learned Additional CSC is misconceived and devoid of merit. 21. He next submitted that both the authorities have committed no error in passing the impugned orders and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 22. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the property was in the name of Pradeep Singh and in case it is included in the land of Bhagwan Singh as seperate land and by calculating the ceiling limits it can be declared as surplus. The land of Pradeep Singh subsequently was transferred by executing sale deed and subsequently purchased by some other persons cannot be clubbed in the land of Bhagwan Singh. 23. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that on the basis of Will Deed dated 07.12.1973 the land was mutated in the name of Anwar Ali and others and mutation has also been made to the same effect, therefore, the land cannot be clubbed along with land of Bhagwan Singh. 24. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 25. From the narration of facts and the orders passed by the authorities at various stages, it is evident that the core dispute revolves around the inclusion of plot no.508/5-350 hectares in the holding of the original tenure holder, Bhagwan Singh under the Ceiling Act. The record clearly reflects that pursuant to the remand order of the appellate authority dated 29.01.1997, the Prescribed Authority was required to re-examine the matter afresh with respect to the claim of respondent nos.1 to 3 touching the title of Pradeep Singh over the said land and the effect of the Will Deeds produced in those proceedings. That exercise was duly undertaken and the appellate authority, as the final fact-finding body, upon considering the revenue entries, the Will Deeds relied upon by the respondents and the mutation orders passed much prior to the ceiling proceedings, arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the land in question did not constitute part of the holding of Bhagwan Singh. 26. That exercise was duly undertaken and the appellate authority, as the final fact-finding body, upon considering the revenue entries, the Will Deeds relied upon by the respondents and the mutation orders passed much prior to the ceiling proceedings, arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the land in question did not constitute part of the holding of Bhagwan Singh. 26. The plea of the petitioner that the question of title attained finality in the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.10.1994 is untenable inasmuch as that very order stood set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded for fresh determination. Once the earlier order was wiped out and the field became open for re-consideration, the doctrine of res judicata has no application. The appellate authority, therefore, cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction merely because it examined the Will Deeds or the title of Pradeep Singh while deciding Appeal No.57. 27. The argument that the Will Deed was not produced or considered is factually incorrect, as the impugned order specifically refers to the Will Deed and the manner in which the rights of respondents nos.1 to 3 were recognized by the mutation authorities. The petitioner has failed to show that these findings are either perverse or based on no evidence. 28. The submission that the Will Deed should be ignored under Sections 5(6) and 5(8) of the Ceiling Act on account of its execution during the pendency of ceiling proceedings also does not aid the petitioner. The appellate authority has not treated the Will Deed as a device to defeat the Ceiling Act but has relied upon it, along with mutation entries, only to ascertain the existing title of Pradeep Singh over the land at the relevant time. This Court cannot re-appreciate such findings in writ jurisdiction unless they suffer from manifest illegality or perversity, none of which have been demonstrated by the petitioner. 29. On the contrary, the materials placed suggest that the land had already been treated as belonging to Pradeep Singh and respondents nos.1 to 3 much before the final ceiling calculations and the appellate authority’s reliance upon those materials cannot be faulted. It also deserves notice that the petitioner has failed to establish any substantial injury or prejudice occasioned to the State by the impugned order. It also deserves notice that the petitioner has failed to establish any substantial injury or prejudice occasioned to the State by the impugned order. The surplus land was recalculated and the deficiency, if any, was duly adjusted from other holdings of the tenure holder. The prolonged delay and administrative inaction in filing this writ petition further weaken the petitioner’s claim for equitable relief under Article 226 Constitution of India. 30. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not meant to rectify belated administrative lapses, especially when the impugned order is supported by cogent reasoning and does not infringe any statutory mandate. 31. In view of the above considerations, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or violation of statutory provisions in the appellate order dated 14.10.1999. The findings recorded therein are based on proper appreciation of the record, independently supported by revenue entries and mutation orders and do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed 33. No order as to costs.