ORDER

B.L. Yadav, J. - The petitioners were purchasers of the land from Labh Singh son of Harnam Singh, original tenure-holder against whom the notices under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the Act) were issued. The petitioners have purchased the land in the year 1973 from Labh Singh through a Sale deed dated 23/26-6-1973. No notice was given to the petitioners the vendees as required by Section 9(2) of the Act and Rule 8. As soon as the petitioner came to learn they preferred the objection with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By the impugned orders dated 19-12-1985 and 28-6-85 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexures VIII and VI) the application moved by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the objection, has been rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that notice must have been served on the petitioners, the purchasers as the vendor has no right left in the plots, hence notice on vendor is of no consequence rather vital rights of petitioners have been taken away without serving any notice on them in view of Section 9(2) of the Act and Rule 8 of the Rules. As the petitioners were not served with any notice, hence they have no knowledge about proceedings and sufficient grounds have been made out for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Reliance was placed on Full Bench decision of this Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Civil Judge, AIR 1970 All 130 and another Full Bench decision in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P., 1979 (5) All LR 564: (1970 All LJ 1174). The learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that the impugned orders are incorrect and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rightly rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the petition may be disposed of finally on merits.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Section 9(2) and Rule 3 makes it manifest that the notice under Section 9(2) is mandatory to the recorded tenure-holder and in case tenure-holder is not recorded, or it another tenure-holder has purchased the land but is not recorded, then the notice must be issued to him as well. Under Rule 8 of the Rules it has been provided that C.L.R. form3 also includes the land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon such a person a notice in C.L.H. form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. from No. 3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice, why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. In the present case, no such notice was given to the petitioners, who were purchasers from the recorded tenure-holder under the aforesaid sale deed. The provisions of Rule 8 were mandatory in nature. These provisions are set out as follows :-

"As soon as may, after expiry of the. thirty days from the date of publication of the general notice in C.L.H. form in the official gazette, the prescribed authority shall cause to he served upon tenure-holder, who has failed to submit the statement in C.L.H. form 2 or has submitted an incomplete or incorrect statement, a notice in C.L.H. form 4 together with the copy of the statement in C.L.H. form 3 prpared under Rule calling upon him to show cause within a period of 15 days from the date of the service of the notice, why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct."

6. Rule 8 provides two types of tenure-holders First is the recorded tenure-holder and the proviso provides notice to be served on any other tenure holder other than provided in the Ist part of the Rule. Section 3(17) defines tenure holder, which means holder of a holding. After the execution of the sale deed the vendees - the petitioners in the