JUDGMENT M.C. Desai, C.J. - The appellant, who is a tenure holder, failed to obtain certiorari from our brother Broome for the quashing of an order passed by a prescribed authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act rejecting his application for including certain land in his ceiling area or excluding it from the surplus area and an order passed by the District Judge dismissing and appeal from it as barred by time. 2. As far as the order of the District Judge on appeal from the order of the prescribed authority is concerned it was barred by time because the period of limitation ran from the date of the order of the prescribed authority and not from the date of knowledge. It was the duty of the appellant's counsel to be present on the date fixed for delivery of the order by the prescribed authority; if he did not appear before it on the date and, therefore, did not know about it the appellant is not entitled to compute the period of limitation for an appeal from it from the date on which he came to know about it. The law treats the date fixed for the delivery of the order as the date on which he acquired the knowledge of its contents. In any case this view taken by the learned District Judge could not be said to be so manifestly wrong that this Court could interfere with his order dismissing the appeal as barred by time. 3. Coming to the order of the prescribed authority, there were four grounds pressed before our learned brother. One was that there was some arithmetical error and our learned brother rightly pointed out that the appellant's remedy was to apply to the prescribed authority for correction of it. Another was that the appellant did not hold land in villages Kharkhuntra, Harakhpura and Neuri; the prescribed authority decided the question against the appellant on the basis of entries in the village records and there was nothing manifestly illegal in his doing so. Third objection was that land covered by a grove in the Abadi and land used as thrashing floor should have been exempted. As our learned brother pointed out the appellant's claim was too vague; he did not specify the land which he claimed to be exempt. The prescribed authority has exempted certain land. Third objection was that land covered by a grove in the Abadi and land used as thrashing floor should have been exempted. As our learned brother pointed out the appellant's claim was too vague; he did not specify the land which he claimed to be exempt. The prescribed authority has exempted certain land. The last ground was the ground most vehemently passed before us by Sri Faujdar Rai; it was that the prescribed authority excluded certain plots from his ceiling area and included them in the surplus area against his wishes. Now the relevant facts are that the appellant did not file any statement in response to the general notice published under Section 9 of the Act. The prescribed authority prepared a statement as required by Section 10 and served a copy of it upon the appellant calling upon him to show cause within a certain time why it be not taken as correct. In reply to this notice the appellant filed an objection challenged certain plots of land within his ceiling area. The reason for including them within his ceiling area was that they formed part of a mechanised farm. The prescribed authority rejected his claim that they formed part of a mechanised farm and did not include them in his ceiling area and instead included them in the surplus area. This order was impugned before our learned brother on the ground that the prescribed authority committed a manifest error of law by not accepting his claim that the plots should be included within his ceiling area and not within the surplus area. Our learned brother rejected his contention because there was no law which compelled the prescribed authority to accept the appellant's choice as to which land of his should or should not be included within his ceiling area and also because there was no clear statement about the plots forming part of a mechanised farm. 4. In his objection under Section 10(2) the appellant did not make a clear statement that the plots formed part of a mechanised farm. He did not assert that he had cultivated the plots for at least three successive years with a tractor. All he said was that he had a tractor and that the plots could be cultivated with it. The prescribed authority did not commit any illegality by refusing to treat the plots as part of a mechanised farm. 5. He did not assert that he had cultivated the plots for at least three successive years with a tractor. All he said was that he had a tractor and that the plots could be cultivated with it. The prescribed authority did not commit any illegality by refusing to treat the plots as part of a mechanised farm. 5. We agree with the view of our learned brother that no provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder compelled the prescribed authority to include the plots within the appellant's ceiling area merely because he wanted them to be so included in his objection filed under Section 10(2). Under Section 9 the prescribed authority is required to publish to general notice calling upon every tenure holder to submit to him within a certain time "a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed" and indicating the plot or plots "which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him under the provisions of this Act." Rule 6 and 7 of the Rules made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 44 of the Act deal with the general notice to be published under Section 9. The general notice is to be in C.L.H. Form I and the statement to be submitted by a tenure holder in response to it has to be in C.L.H. Form II. Form II is in four sections, section C being about the land proposed to be retained by the tenure holder as part of his ceiling area. Section 10 is as follows:- "(1) In every case where a tenure holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted under Section 9 the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary ......cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Section 10 is as follows:- "(1) In every case where a tenure holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted under Section 9 the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary ......cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall in particular indicate.......the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land." (2) The Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause to be served upon every tenure holder in such manner as may be prescribed, a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-Section (1) calling upon him to show cause within a period specified in the notice, why the statement be not taken as correct." 6. Rule 7 to 10 deal with the statement prepared under Section 10(1) and the notice and the objection referred to in Section 10(2). Rule 7(1) is as follows:- "Soon after the issue of general notice in C.L.H. Form I, the Prescribed Authority shall...cause to be prepared a statement in C.L.H. Form 3." 7. Rule 8 is to the effect that immediately after the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the general notice the prescribed authority "shall cause to be served upon every 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 a copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 prepared under rule 6 calling upon him to show cause ......why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correction." Form 3 is in three sections, Section C being of the land proposed for surplus area. Form 4 prescribed for a notice under Section 10(1) informs the tenure holder of the land proposed to be included in his ceiling area and the land proposed to be included in the surplus area, calls upon him to show cause within a certain period why the "enclosed" statement be not taken as correct and proceeds to state that "in case the land proposed to be included in the ceiling area applicable to you, as indicated in ....Form C.L.H. Form 3, is not acceptable to you, you should file an objection specifying your own choice of the land (giving the same details as in the columns referred to above) that you want to retain within the ceiling area applicable to you." Section 44 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules generally "for carrying out the purposes of this Act" and in particular providing for the manner in which a notice may be served or published, the matters which are to be and may be prescribed, the procedure which the Collector has to follow when exercising the powers, the fees payable and the manner and the principle under which certain expenses are to be calculated. Any rule made by the State Government which is not within this authority conferred by Section 44 is ultra vires. We find that the rules which we have reproduced above cannot be said to be quite within the authority conferred by Section 44. There is nothing wrong with Rule 6 but Rule 7 regarding the preparation of a statement in Form 3 cannot be reconciled with the provisions of the Act. After the issue of a general notice there is only one statement to be prepared and it is the statement referred to in Section 10(1) and to be prepared by the prescribed authority. The statement has to contain such particulars as may be prescribed; the State Government had power to prescribe the particulars to be contained in such a statement but no rule has been made expressly prescribing the particulars to be contained in such a statement. Rule 7 refers to the preparation of a statement in Form 3 but does not identify it with the statement to be prepared under Section 10(1). There is no other rule laying down that this is the statement referred to in Section 10(1). Rule 7 refers to the preparation of a statement in Form 3 but does not identify it with the statement to be prepared under Section 10(1). There is no other rule laying down that this is the statement referred to in Section 10(1). If one were to read Rule 7 one would have justification for saying that the statement referred to in it is not the statement referred to in Section 10(1) because it is to be prepared immediately after the issue of a general notice whereas the later is to be prepared only after a tenure holder has failed to submit a statement, or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, in response to the general notice. The statement referred to in Rule 7 is to be prepared in respect of every tenure holder whereas the statement referred to in Section 10(1) is to be prepared only in respect of the tenure holder who has failed to submit, or has submitted an incomplete or incorrect statement, in response to the general notice. The only provisions in the rules connecting the former statement with the statement referred to in Section 10(1) is rule 8 to the effect that the notice issued under Section 10(2) should be accompanied by a copy of it; it is left to be inferred from this provision that it is the statement referred to in Section 10(1). It s not understood why the State Government did not expressly say in Rule 7 that the statement referred to in Section 10(1) should be prepared in such and such manner. It is also not understood why the State Government required such a statement to be prepared in respect of every tenure holder when it can be used only in respect of tenure holders who fail to submit or submit incorrect or incomplete statements. We cannot, however, strike down as invalid rule 7 simply on the ground that it requires the preparation of a statement in the case of every tenure holder; if the preparation of a statement in respect of some tenure holders is a waste of time and labour that would not have the effect of invalidating the rule. We cannot, however, strike down as invalid rule 7 simply on the ground that it requires the preparation of a statement in the case of every tenure holder; if the preparation of a statement in respect of some tenure holders is a waste of time and labour that would not have the effect of invalidating the rule. We may also ignore the absence of a express provision that it is the statement referred to in Section 10(1) that is to be prepared in C.L.H. Form 3 and proceed on the assumption that rule 7 deals with the statement referred to in Section 10(1). When we come to the form prescribed for the notice to be issued under Section 10(2) we find that the variance between the prescribed form and the notice contemplated by Section 10(2) is so material that at least part of the prescribed form must be ruled out as ultra vires. There is nothing wrong with the first sentence of the notice "Whereas you have failed.....be not taken as correct"; this was all that was required to be contained in the notice by Section 10(2). The tenure holder has only to be called upon to show cause why the statement prepared under Section 10(1) be not taken as correct; he is not to be asked to give his choice as to the plots to included in his ceiling area or to be included in the surplus area. He had an opportunity to make this choice in response to the general notice and when he failed to avail himself of this opportunity the legislature very wisely refrained from giving him another opportunity. When he failed to submit a statement the legislature in its wisdom provided for the preparation of a statement by the prescribed authority and for hearing what the tenure holder had to urge against it. This was all that the tenure holder was entitle to after his failure to avail himself of the opportunity given by the general notice. Any choice to be given to him, and particularly any choice such as would bind the prescribed authority, was irreconcilable with the onus cast upon him to show that the statement prepared under Section 10(1) was incorrect. Any choice to be given to him, and particularly any choice such as would bind the prescribed authority, was irreconcilable with the onus cast upon him to show that the statement prepared under Section 10(1) was incorrect. The only right conferred upon him by Section 10 was of showing that the statement prepared under sub-Section (1) was incorrect; no other right was conferred upon him and Rule 8 read with C.L.H. Form 4 went beyond the authority conferred upon the State Government by Section 44. The State Government's giving to the defaulting tenure holder (e.g., the tenure holder who had defaulted in making a proper statement in response to the general notice) a right to choose the plots to be included in his ceiling area or in the surplus area could not be said to be carrying out the purposes of the Act, because, as we said earlier, the Act contemplated giving this choice only once. Giving this choice could not be said to be prescribing the manner in which the notice issued under Section 10(2) was to be served or published. Stating what should be contained in a notice is quite distinct from stating how a notice should be served or published. Section 44(2)(a) conferred authority upon the State Government only to prescribe the manner or mode of service of the notice issued under Section 10(2) ; its content have already been prescribed in Section 10(2) Under Section 10(2) only the manner of service of the notice was to be prescribed and not its contents. Rule 9 is the rule prescribing the manner of service of the notice. The State Government, therefore, could not include in C.L.H. Form 4 the direction "In case the land proposed.... within the ceiling area applicable." 8. Section 9 of the Act requires the tenure holder to indicate the plots which he would like to retain as part of his ceiling area, but does not lay down that the prescribed authority is bound to include them in his ceiling area so far as is legally possible. There is no provision laying down how it should deal with this choice of the tenure holder, but we are prepared to concede that it is binding upon it so far as permitted by the law. There is no provision laying down how it should deal with this choice of the tenure holder, but we are prepared to concede that it is binding upon it so far as permitted by the law. Section 11 lays down how the statement submitted by the tenure holder in response to the general notice is to be dealt with. Since the Act and the Rules do not lay down the principles to be followed for including a plot within the ceiling area or within the surplus area it may be inferred that the choice exercised by the tenure holder is to be accepted by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority would have no ground for rejecting his choice and would therefore be bound to accept it. He has to prepare under Section 10(1) a statement only when the tenure holder does not submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement in response to the general notice; only in such a case it has the right to select the land to be declared as surplus land. It seems to follow that when a tenure holder submits a statement which is not incorrect or incomplete the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction to select land to be declared as surplus land, i.e. it must accept the tenure holder's choice. But the statutory right of a tenure holder to select land to be included in his ceiling area cannot be assimilated with the right given to him through the unauthorised portion of form No. 4. A tenure holder's right to show cause why the statement prepared under Section 10(1) be not taken as correct may be said to include a right to select the land to be included in his ceiling area; he can show that the land selected by the prescribed authority for being declared as surplus land was not properly selected and may suggest other land to be selected in its place. He can suggest other land to be declared as surplus by stating what land must be included in his ceiling area, but the right essentially is of showing cause against the statement; it is for the prescribed authority to determine whether he has succeeded in showing cause or not. He can suggest other land to be declared as surplus by stating what land must be included in his ceiling area, but the right essentially is of showing cause against the statement; it is for the prescribed authority to determine whether he has succeeded in showing cause or not. He must discharge the onus of showing cause against it and then only the prescribed authority would be bound to accept his choice as to land to be included in his ceiling area. It is not bound to accept his choice without being satisfied that the land selected by itself for being declared as surplus land was not the proper land to be so declared. In other words, it cannot be said that it is bound by the choice, if made by the tenure holder when showing cause against the statement. Section 10 provides that when a tenure holder appears in response to the notice issued under Section 10(2) and shows cause against the statement the prescribed authority must decide his objection after giving him a reasonable opportunity of producing evidence, record reasons for his decision and then determine the surplus land. This confirms what we have said, viz. that it is for the tenure holder to satisfy that some land other than the land proposed in statement prepared by the prescribed authority under Section 10(1) should be declared as surplus land. Without any reason it cannot alter the statement prepared by it. 9. Sri Faujdar Rai relied upon Brij Raj Kumari v. Uttar Pradesh 1964 R.D. 54. Oak, J. did not expressly lay down in that case that a choice made by a tenure holder when showing cause under Section 10(2) is binding upon the prescribed authority. What had happened in the case before him was that a prescribed authority refused to consider the choice made by the tenure holder in her objection under Section 10(2) on the ground that she had no right to make it at all. It refused to consider her choice and this was found by Oak, J. to be wrong. Whatever objection she could make had to be heard and as we said she could object to the prescribed authority's proposal to declare certain land as surplus land and suggest some other land instead to be so declared and the prescribed authority was bound by Section 12 to decide the objection including the suggestion. Whatever objection she could make had to be heard and as we said she could object to the prescribed authority's proposal to declare certain land as surplus land and suggest some other land instead to be so declared and the prescribed authority was bound by Section 12 to decide the objection including the suggestion. To the extent that Oak, J. held that the prescribed authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction over the tenure holder's choice of the land to be declared as surplus land we are in full agreement with him, but there are certain observations made by him which we respectfully dissent from. He referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and equated a tenure holder's right to make a choice under Section 9 with the right conferred by the notice in Form 4. He did not consider whether the State Government when prescribing Form 4 had the right to give the tenure holder a choice and whether even if it could give him the choice it was of the same nature as that to be exercised under Section 9. As we pointed out the State Government had no power to make a rule conferring upon a tenure holder a right to make the same kind of choice as under Section 9. Further, a notice under Section 10(2) is only to call upon the tenure holder to show cause why the statement prepared by the prescribed authority be not taken as correct; giving him a choice to select plots to be included in the surplus area would be inconsistent with the onus cast upon him to show that the land selected in the statement to be declared as surplus land was improperly selected. There was no question of his making a choice if he had to support it with reasons. In any case that choice was different from the choice to be made by him under Section 9 which did not require to be supported with reasons. There was no question of his making a choice if he had to support it with reasons. In any case that choice was different from the choice to be made by him under Section 9 which did not require to be supported with reasons. Oak, J. said at page 56 "If the tenure-holder fails to indicate his choice even under Section 10, the provisional statement is liable to be confirmed." The provisional statement is liable to be confirmed even if the tenure holder makes a choice, if he is tenure holder makes a choice, if he is unable to discharge the onus of showing that the choice made by the prescribed authority is incorrect. We respectfully do not agree with the suggestion of Oak, J. that if the tenure holder makes a choice he has not to do anything further and the choice binds the prescribed authority. We find, in the result, that the prescribed authority did not commit any illegality by including in the surplus area the plots that the appellant wanted to retain in his ceiling area. 10. The attack on the order passed by the prescribed authority fails also on the ground that the appellant failed to avail himself of an alternative adequate remedy against it, namely that of filing an appeal. He could not by allowing the period of limitation for an appeal to expire confer upon himself the right to come to this Court under Article 226. Another ground is that the petition for the quashing of the order is belated; the order was passed on 1.2.1963 whereas the petition for certiorari was presented on 24.1.1964, with the delay of nearly a year. There was no adequate explanation for all this delay and on this ground alone the petition was liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result we dismiss the special appeal.