retrospectively i.e. on 8.6.1973. The order passed by the prescribed authority being on 13.1.1975, the first condition of Section 9 is met, namely, that this order has been passed before 17.1.1975. It is the second part of the Section on which a lot of the debate featured. According to learned counsel for the State a discretion is vested in the prescribed authority by use of the expression “may”. We may hasten to add that the very expression “may at any time within a period of two years…” also occurs in Section 31(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976. This sub- section makes it clear that the expression “may” goes along with the words “at any time within a period of two years…” as it is clear that on a correct reading of the subSection, the prescribed authority has, in every case, to redetermine surplus land if an order determining surplus land has been made before the 10th day of October, 1975. The idea is that a period of two years is given to re-determine surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974. This being the case, it is clear that no discretion is vested in the prescribed authority to re-determine surplus land. Surplus land has, in all cases, to be re-determined, as a completely different and new scheme applicable to all lands has replaced the existing scheme. The only exception is where, prior to 8.6.1973, a determination of surplus land has been made finally, that is, an appeal has been disposed of under Section 13.”
