ORDER

K.P. Singh, J. - Shorn of unnecessary details it appears that the petitioners are allottees of the land declared as surplus belonging to opposite party No. 4. Previously the disputed land was declared as surplus land of the opposite party No. 4 in the present writ petition, namely Sirish Chandra Pandey. Thereafter the opposite party No. 4 Sirish Chandra Pandey succeeded in appeal and the disputed land has been included within the ceiling limit of the land held by the opposite party No. 4 in the present writ petition. When the disputed land was included within the ceiling limit of the tenure holder Sirish Chandra Pandey he applied for restitution of possession which has been granted to him. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 14-11-1983 complaining that the orders dated 19-5-1983 and 28-7-1983 were passed against the petitioners without hearing them. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the prescribed authority through his judgment dated 20-5-1986. Against the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed as is evident from the order of the appellate authority dated 13-11-1987.

2. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been in possession over the disputed land for sufficiently long time and the impugned orders are patently erroneous and that as the petitioners were not heard by the. prescribed authority when the complained orders dated 19-5-1983 and 28-7-1983 were passed, therefore, the impugned orders should be quashed.

3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted that the disputed land in the facts and circumstances of the present case would be treated not declared as surplus and, therefore, the allotment of the disputed land to the petitioners in the eye of law is non est. The petitioners have no claim to press in the present writ petition.

4. Second submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party is that the order of the prescribed authority could not be appealed against, therefore, the appeal of the petitioners was rightly rejected by the appellate authority.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I think that the impugned judgment of the prescribed authority dated 20-5-1986 cannot be sustained. Even if the appeal preferred by the petitioners was rightly rejected when the order of the prescribed authority suffers from patent error of law, it can he quashed in the present case.

6. In the impugned judgment dated 20-5-1986 the prescribed authority has observed as below :-

PARISTHITI NYAYALAYA DWARA ISKE BADLE MEN ANYATRA ATIRIKT BHUMI GHOSHIT KI JA CHUKI HAI. JAB YAH BHUMI ATIRIKT NAHI RAHI TO ISKA KABZA LENE WO PATTA KARNE KA NIYAMTAH KOI APATTI NAHI RAHA. ISLIYE PATTEDAR KANOONAN KAHIN ASTI-TWA MEN NAHI ATE. IN PARISTHITI MEN MERE PURVADHIKARI KEADESH DINANK 19- 5-83/ 28-7-83 MEN KISI TARAH KE PARIVARTAN KA AUCHITYA NAHI PRATIT HOTA. TADNUSAR PRARTHI- GAN GAN KA PRARTHNA PATRA DINANK 14-11-83 KHARIJ KIYA JATA HAI. BAAD AVASHYAK KARYAWAHI PATRAWALI DAKHIL DAFTAR HO......

7. It is noteworthy that the prescribed authority has not decided whether the complained orders dated 19-5-83/28-7-83 were ex parte against the petitioners. It has not been disputed before me that the petitioners were not heard when the orders dated 19-5-1983/28-7-83 were passed against them. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were allotted the disputed land by the ceiling authorities as a matter of fact. In 1986 All U 1232, Satya Pal v. State of U.P., a learned single Judge of this Court has emphasised that lessee should be given opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of lease in his favour. In 1981 All WC 143, Smt. Kailashia v. Ist Addl. District Judge, Banda a learned single Judge of this Court has emphasised that the prescribed authority has inherent power to grant restitution of possession to a tenure holder. In the facts and circumstances of this case I think that the p