JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 1st May, 2003, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.
2. Petitioner Radhey Shyam, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 26th October, 1983, passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provision of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961), which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act', copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2, to the writ petition and the order dated 6th September, 1985, passed by the appellate authority, the copy whereof in annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner had filed an application dated 17th March, 1983, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wherein he has stated that while declaring the petitioner's 5 acres 90 dismal land as surplus, he has not been given any opportunity to give his choice and requested that instead of plots declared as surplus, the petitioner now may be allowed to exercise the option by referring the plot numbers. It is not disputed that the possession of the land declared surplus has already been taken over and amaldaramad to this effect has already been taken place in the revenue records. Petitioner's land was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority measuring an area of 5 acres 90 dismal by his order dated 26th October, 1983.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act before the appellate authority, who vide its order dated 6th September, 1985 rejected the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.
5. The provision of Section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is quoted below :
"13. Appeal.--(1) Any party aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12, may, within thirty days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the District Judge within whole jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate.
(2) The District Judge shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any court of law.
(3) Where an appeal is preferred under this section, the district Judge may stay enforcement of the order appealed against for such time and on such conditions as may be considered just and proper :
Provided that the enforcement of the order appealed against shall not be stayed in respect of that part of the land the surplus character of which was either not disputed in an objection under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 or under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 or is not disputed in the appeal and any stay order passed under this sub-section before twenty-eighth day of September, 1970, shall on an application being made in that behalf to the appellate court by the State Government, be modified by that Court accordingly.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this proviso any dispute respecting the regularity, validity or legality of a notice under Section 9 or Section 10 or of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority shall not, by itself, be deemed to be a dispute respecting the surplus character of land."
6. A bare perusal of the provision aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the appeal under Section 13 of the Act is maintainable only if any party feels aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 or Section 12, and prefer an appeal within thirty days of the date of order. The order impugned in the present writ petition cannot, by stretch of imagination, be said to have been either under Section 11 or 12 of the Act aforesaid, thus the view taken by the appellate authority that no appeal lies is perfectly in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, which may warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is concerned, since the earlier order passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring 5 acres 90 dismal land of the petitioner has already been given effect to, which fact has not been denied in the rejoinder-affidavit, therefore, in my opinion the Prescribed Authority has not committed any error, much less manifest error of law. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.