Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.11.1987 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 26.6.1989 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect of the orders dated 10.11.1987 and 26.6.1989 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and further commanding the respondents that they be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute.

2. The brief facts arising out of the present writ petition are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to Rajvir Singh, who contested the said proceeding on number of grounds, as the objection was considered and the matter was determined by the appellate authority. However, in view of the notice issued to Rajvir Singh, a share belonging to the petitioner was also included for the purposes of declaration of surplus land. No notice as required under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1961 was ever issued by the respondents to the petitioner, with the result the land belonging to the petitioner and his brothers namely Bhanu Pratap Singh, Narendra Pratap Singh, Vijai Vir Singh, Krishna Vir Singh and Ramvir Singh were also included. When the petitioner came to know about the inclusion of his land in the khata of his uncle, he filed an objection under Section 11(2) of the Act and prayed that the determination should be made to this effect. A copy of the said objection dated 20.7.1981 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. The Prescribed Authority without taking into consideration the question on merits was pleased to reject the same by order dated 24.10.1986. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate authority has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision as a fresh. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a finding has been recorded by the appellate authority that the property belongs to one Sardar Singh and Sardar Singh was having three sons namely Om Pal Singh, Raj Vir Singh and Man Vir Singh. A pedegree showing heirs of Sardar Singh is being quoted :

Sardar Singh S/o Sri Deen Singh

Om Pal Singh Raj Vir Singh ManVir Singh

Date of Birth- 1918 1920 1927

Date of death- 1954

1. Bhanu Pratap Singh 1. Krishna Vir Singh 1. Vijay Vir Singh

Dt of birth- 2.7.1943 5.1.1945 1951

2.Gajendra PratapSingh 2. Ram Vir Singh 2. Ajay Vir Singh

Dt.of birth 3.1.45 1947 1952

3. Narendra Pratap Singh 3. Ran Vir Singh

Dt.of birth 3.12.1947 1954

4. Rajendra Pratap Singh

Dt.of birth 1952

Dt.of death 1975

5. Udai Pratap Singh

Dt.of birth 1953

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a finding has been recorded by the appellate authority that it is an ancestral property of Hindu Joint Family and admittedly, the petitioner was born prior to 1952 and at the time of initiation of the ceiling proceedings the petitioner was major. A finding to this effect has also been recorded by the appellate authority that no notice to the petitioner was ever given as required under the Act. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts, the appellate authority vide its judgement and order dated 28.5.1987 allowed the Appeal No. 52/86-87 and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority to decide it on merits after giving opportunity to all the relevant parties. The Prescribed Authority without considering the finding recorded by the appellate authority has rejected the objection only on the ground that it was filed on 16.7.1987. The Prescribed Authority has dismissed the objection vide its order dated 10.11.1987.

5. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an appeal.