DWIVEDI, J. :- M/s. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) has filed this writ petition. It appears that the Company did not file a statement in respect of its holdings as required by Section 9 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Landholdings Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Prescribed Authority accordingly prepared a statement of its holdings, mentioning the plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. This statement was served upon it in accordance with Section 10 (2). It was required to show cause why the statement should not be taken to be correct. The Company filed an objection. While the objection was pending, the Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., the fourth respondent, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority. The respondent claimed to be the exclusive tenure-holder of certain plots mentioned in the statement and wanted to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application. On appeal, the Civil Judge has set aside the order and directed the Prescribed Authority to implead the respondent as a party and to decide its claim in accordance with law. The writ petition is directed against his order.

2. When the petition came up for hearing before Sri Justice Satish Chandra, the Company argued before him that the Act does not envisage the filing of a claim to the plots shown in the statement prepared under Section 10 (1) by a stranger to the proceedings started under Section 10 (2). The company relied on a decision of the learned Judge himself. (Kesar Sugar Works v. State, 1967 All LJ 551). The respondent opposed this argument and counterposed the decision of another learned Judge (Bageshwari Devi v. S. B. Pandey, 1965 All LJ 756). There is an obvious conflict between these two decisions. So the learned Judge referred a specific question to a larger bench for opinion. That question, after some verbal alterations made by us, is:

"Is a person who claims to be the tenure-holder but is not so recorded in the revenue papers entitled to file an objection to the statement which is prepared under Section 10 (1) of the Act and Issued to another person under Section 10 (2) of the Act?"

3. The scheme of the Act is to provide for the acquisition by the State of the surplus land of a tenure-holder and for Its redistribution among the landless. With this end in view it imposes a ceiling on landholding, and acquires the area in excess of the ceiling. Chapter II of the Act contains provisions for the imposition of ceiling on landholdings and acquisition of the surplus land by the State. It comprises Sections 5 to 16. Section 4 imposes a ceiling of 40 acres on the existing land-holdings. Section 5 provides that no tenure-holder shall hold an area in excess of the ceiling area. Under Section 9 the Prescribed Authority publishes in the Gazette a general notice calling upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area to submit to him within 30 days of the publication of the notice a statement in respect of all his holdings in the prescribed form. He has also to specify the plots which he would retain as part of his ceiling area. Section 10 deals with the contingency of the tenure-holder's failure to submit a statement. It consists of two sub-sections. Under subsection (1) the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall also indicate the plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. Under sub-section (2) the Prescribed Authority serves 'upon every such tenure-holder' a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-section (1) and calls upon him "to show cause within a period specified in the notice why the statement be not taken as correct". As some controversy raged round the meaning of Section 11 (1) and (2), it is necessary to reproduce these sub-sections in extenso, Section 11 (1) provides :

"Where the statement submitted by a tenure-holder in