IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Misc. Civil Writ Petition No.5647 (M/S) of 2001 Mahendra Singh S/o Sri Lal Singh . .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Heard Shri M.C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. In the year 1974, a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why 34 bighas of land should not be declared surplus. The petitioner entered appearance and filed his objection and the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 27th February, 1975 declared 32 bighas of land as surplus land. Against this order, an appeal was filed which was allowed by an order dated 21st May, 1977 holding that the petitioner does not possess any surplus land. It transpires that on 24th September, 1975, another notice u/S 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause why 8 bighas and 10 bishas of land should not be declared surplus. The petitioner again filed his objection and the Prescribed Authority after considering the matter found that the petitioner possessed 8 bighas and 10 biswas of surplus land vide his order dated 6th March, 1976. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 20th September, 1976 against which a review application was filed which was allowed by an order dated 12th March, 1991 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with certain directions. 2 The Prescribed Authority upon remand, again heard the matter and decided the matter by an order dated 20th May, 1992 again holding that the petitioner possessed 8 bighas and 10 biswas as surplus land. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 30th June, 1993. A review application was filed which was again rejected and, thereafter, a writ petition No. 8795 of 1994 was filed before the High Court at Allahabad which was dismissed by judgment dated 28th February, 1994. The writ court found that there are no conflicting orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and that the authority was justified in declaring 8 bighas and 10 biswas as surplus land. The Court further observed that if there was an error in the calculation in the area of grove land and if there was such an apparent mistake on the face of the record, in that eventuality, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application for the correction of the mistake u/S 13-A of the Act. Armed with this observation, the petitioner moved application u/S 13-A of the Act for rectification of the order alleging that 8 bighas and 10 biswas of land was wrongly declared surplus and the same was liable to be rectified. The Prescribed Authority, by its order dated 13th September, 1995, rejected the application against which an appeal was preferred which was allowed and the matter was remanded. The Prescribed Authority after remand, again found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and again rejected the application. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected, consequently, the writ petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the application u/S 13-A of the Act filed by the petitioner was patently misconceived. Under the garb of rectification of mistake, the petitioner has tried to reopen the case 3 by making a contention that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and that the Prescribed Authority had wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioner possessed 8 bighas and 10 biswas of surplus land. In my opinion, it is no longer open to the petitioner to question the findings of the Prescribed Authority on the issue as to how much bighas of surplus land he possessed. The Writ Court was clear in its direction, namely, with regard to the area of the grove land. Nothing has been brought on the record before the Prescribed Authority to show that the area of grove land, as assessed by the Prescribed Authority, was incorrect and that there was an apparent mistaken on the record. In my view, the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority are based on findings of fact, quite apart from the fact that the application of the petitioner u/S 13-A of the Act was not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as such. (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) Dated 16.11.2009 Shiv/Bhaskar