Heard Shri S. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, the consolidation operation was completed and the area of land held by the petitioner stands reduced.

3. The contention of the learned coun sel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority ought to have taken into con sideration the reduction of the area made during the consolidation proceedings. Despite the fact that the petitioner has moved an application before the appellate authority, issue of "reduction in ceiling area" has not been considered. The contention of the petitioner has substance and is sup ported by the ratio laid down by this court in Satyapal Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1979 AWC 207; and Mahesh Prasad Awasthi v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 RD 258.

4. In view of the decisions in the two cases, referred to above, I am of the view the impugned order is not sustainable and it is set aside with the following direction.

5. The appellate authority is directed to re-examine the matter placed before it and determine the ceiling area t