Order
1. The question which arises for consideration in these two appeals is whether the period of two years prescribed by Section 31(3) of the U.P Act 20 of 1976 is the period stipulated for the issuance of the notice contemplated by the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Principal Act (the proviso itself having been introduced by Act 20 of 1976) in connection with redetermination of surplus land to be made as a result of the amendments introduced by Act 20 of 1976 or whether it is the period stipulated for the completion of the proceedings for redetermination of the surplus land consequent upon the notice issued under the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act.
2. By Act 20 of 1976 a considerable number of amendments were made and these amendments if given effect would require redetermination of surplus land under the Principal Act (Act 1 of 1960). Section 8 of the Amendment Act introduced a proviso to Section 9(2) of the Principal Act in the following terms:
“Provided that at any time after October 10, 1975, the Prescribed Authority may, by notice, call upon any tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date, to submit to him within thirty days from the date of service of such notice a statement referred to in sub-section (1) or any information pertaining thereto.”
3. Section 31 of the Amendment Act dealt with transitory provisions and sub-section (3) of Section 31 was in the following terms:
“Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the tenth day of October, 1975 the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may, at any time within a period of two years from the said date, redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land.”
4. A plain reading of this transitory provision alongwith proviso to Section 9(2) of the principal Act (as amended) makes it clear that what was contemplated by Section 31(3) of the Amendment Act was the redetermination of the surplus land, that is to say, the conclusions of the proceeding initiated by the notice issued under the proviso to Section 9(2) of the principal Act.
5. We do not see how any other conclusion is possible. Obviously, the legislature took notice of the fact that 17 years had already passed since the passing of the original Act, and therefore, the legislature was particular that the proceedings for redetermination of surplus land should conclude as expeditiously as possible. This was the view taken by the High Court and we see no reason to depart from it. The appeals arc dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.