BINOD KUMAR ROY, J.

The Holdings Act, 1961. In fact, the petitioners pray to quash the order dated 10-5-1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Rath, district Hamipur in Case No. 123 of 1976 (as contained in Annexure No. 6) and the appellate order dated 16-8-89 passed by the Additional Commiss ioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 28 of 1988-89 (as contained in Annexure No. 9 ).

2. Mr. N. K. Saxena, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the authorities have committed an apparent error of law in rejecting the petitioners prayer to hold that in view of the adjudication by the consolidation authorities they were holding land lesser in area than one which was taken into account by the ceiling authorities while determining the ceiling area of the petitioners under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land consolidation authorities have held that the petitioners are holding only 111. 33 acres of lands and this fact should have been taken into account by the ceiling authorities in view of the ration laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyapal Singh v. State of U. P, 1979 AWC 217.

3. Mr. S. C. Mamgain, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document