JUDGMENT D. S. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal by Ram Krishna against the order dated 22-1-1970 of the II Additional District Judge of Kanpur returning the memorandum of appeal for presentation to a proper court. 2. The material facts of the case are that Ram Krishna, appellant, is a resident of Bilhaur, District Kanpur, and had his agricultural holdings in both Districts Kanpur and Unnao. When proceedings were taken under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) his land situated in District Unnao, and no part of the land situated in District Kanpur, was declared surplus land. Thereafter steps for preparation of the Compensation Assessment Roll were taken by the Compensation Officer of Tehsil Bilhaur, District Kanpur, and the appellant feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Compensation Officer under Section 20 (or 21) of the above Act. 3. The learned District Judge expressed the opinion that the expression "land or any part thereof" used in these sections means the surplus land and, therefore, the appeal lay to the District Judge of Unnao and not to the District Judge of Kanpur. 4. A perusal of the various provisions of the Act shall make it clear that the steps taken at the various stages are for determination of the surplus land of the tenure holder and for payment of compensation in respect of the land declared to be surplus land. Sec. 9 contemplates a general notice calling upon every tenure holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him to submit a statement in respect of all his holdings. In the end the Prescribed Authority determines the surplus land of the tenure holder. This order is appealable to the District Judge under Section 13 (1) of the Act. The appeal lies to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated. 5. Similarly the compensation proceedings contemplated by Secs. 17 to 19 of the Act are in respect of the surplus land which had vested in the State under the provisions of the Act. At this state also the appeal, whether under Section 20 (3) or 21 (2) of the Act, lies to the District judge in whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated. 6. 17 to 19 of the Act are in respect of the surplus land which had vested in the State under the provisions of the Act. At this state also the appeal, whether under Section 20 (3) or 21 (2) of the Act, lies to the District judge in whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated. 6. It shall be found that in all the three Secs. 13 (1), 20 (3) and 21 (2) . the appeal lies to the District Judge in whose jurisdiction "the land or any part thereof is situated." In respect of the appeals under Secs. 20 (3) and 21 (2) it can be said that the land in dispute is the surplus land, and not the other land which remains with the tenure holder. But in respect of an appeal under Section 13 (1) all the land of the tenure holder is the subject of dispute as the District Judge can decide that the other land of the tenure holder shall be declared surplus land. Consequently when the validity of the order in respect of the surplus land is challenged in all appeal under Section 13 (1) of the Act, the objector can pray and say that he be not deprived of a part of the surplus land and in lieu of this land another piece of land may be included ill surplus land. The expression `land' as contemplated by Section 13 (1) can, therefore, include the land of any holding of the tenure holder. When the legislature used similar words in the three provisions, it can be urged with considerable force that the word `land' be given the same meaning while giving effect to these provisions. 7. It Secs. 20 (3) and 21 (2) of the Act are read in isolation, and not along with Section 13 (1), it can be said that for purposes of appeal the land contemplated by the sections is the surplus land and not the total land of the holding,. Where the wording of an enactment is not unambiguous and is capable of more than one interpretation, the Courts of Law can adopt that view which shall cause minimum inconvenience to the parties. Where the wording of an enactment is not unambiguous and is capable of more than one interpretation, the Courts of Law can adopt that view which shall cause minimum inconvenience to the parties. When the State suffers no inconvenience on account of the proceedings under the Act being taken by the authorities of Tehsil Bilhaur, no inconvenience shall be caused to it if the appeal is heard by the District Judge of Kanpur and not by the District Judge of the other district Unnao. The appellant is resident of District Kanpur and, naturally it shall be to his convenience if the appeal is heard at Kanpur. 8. To sum up, the appeal could be preferred before the District Judge of Kanpur or before the District Judge of Unnao, and when the appellant decided to seek his remedy before the District Judge of Kanpur the memorandum of appeal could not be returned for presentation before the District Judge of Unnao. 9. The F.A.F.O. is hereby allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The appeal shall now be registered at its original number and decided in accordance with the law. Costs easy. Stay order is vacated.