IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 736 of 2009 Delay Condonation Application No.8514 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 4837 of 2001(M/S) Smt. Sheela Devi (Since Deceased) substituted by her legal heirs Raman Rekhi and another ……Review Applicant/Petitioners. Versus The Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and others. …….Respondents. With Review Application No.735 of 2009 Delay Condonation application No.8513 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 4705 of 2001 (M/S) Smt. Sheela Devi (since deceased) substituted by her legal heirs Sri Aman Rekhi and another. …..Review applicant/Petitioners. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaun Division, Nainital and another. ………Respondent. Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents. Dated: -13-04-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in both the abovementioned review applications is same. Moreover, both the writ petitions have been decided by this Court by a common judgment dated 19-12-2008, hence, the review applications are being decided together by this common order for the sake of convenience. Heard on delay condonation application Nos. 8514 of 2009 and 8513 of 2009 for condoning the delay in filing the review applications. Applications are allowed. Delay is condoned. 2 The review application No. 736 of 2009 has been filed in Writ Petition No. 4837 of 2001 (M/S) and Review Application No. 735 of 2009 has been filed in Writ Petition No.4705 of 2001 (M/S) by the petitioners on the ground that this court has not considered this fact that the case was remanded back by the First Additional District Judge, Nainital to examine the fact whether the petitioners were recorded tenure holder prior to 1380 Fasli and whether the notice was required as per Rule 8 of the Act. The Ceiling Appeal No. 130 of 1982 of the petitioners were allowed by the First Additional District Judge, Nainital and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority with a direction to dispose of the application which was filed under Section 13(a) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act in accordance with law, in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment. By appellate court while remanding the case, it was observed in its order that if the petitioners were recorded tenure holder prior to 1380 Fasli, the position would be otherwise. According to the review applicants, the Prescribed Authority has not considered this point at all and did not recorded any findings in this regard and the case be remanded back to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties has held that the petitioners were not recorded prior to 1380 Fasli her name was recorded in 1380 Fasli and the application was rejected. Further, aggrieved by the order, the petitioners preferred the Ceiling Appeal and in appeal the learned Commissioner has held so far Section 13 (a) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is concerned, this provision can be resorted in case of rectification of mistakes apparent on the fact of record. The contention of the appellant, which had been raised before the prescribed authority cannot be termed as mistake apparent 3 on the fact of the record. In fact the contention was considered in a regular appeal filed by her and the same was rejected on 15-09-1977 and she did not assailed the order further and it become final and the application was held not be maintainable. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court and the Judgment passed by this court. The regular appeal filed by her was rejected on 15-09-1977 and the order passed was not challenged. Even though this Court has again considered the fact whether on the basis of the gift deed, the benefit could be extended to the petitioners or not and by detailed discussion, the writ petition was dismissed and the SLP preferred against the order dated 26-12-2008 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13-04-2009, this fact is mentioned by the review applicant in the delay condonation application. Since, the base of entry which was made in revenue record 1380 Fasli was the gift deed only and it has been held by the Courts that the benefit could not be extended under Section 5(6) proviso (b) (as introduced by U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973) of the Act. No good ground is made out to review the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by this Court. In view of the above discussion, both the review applications are rejected. (B.S.Verma, J.) 13-04-2010 MK 4