JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the notice issued to the petitioners under Sec. 29(b) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 20th May, 1969 and 9th September, 1969 and also the order of the District judge dated 7th February, 1970 whereby the petitioners' appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are; in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 12th March. 1962 held that an area of 3683 Bighas of the petitioners' agricultural holding constituted grove, hence, it was exempted from the ceiling area under sub-sec. (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, on 13th February, 1969 the impugned notice under Section 29 (b) read with Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners along with a statement of the proposed area of surplus land. The notice issued by the Prescribed Authority called upon the petitioners to show cause, within 15 days, as to why the statement accompanying the notice should not be accepted to be correct. In the aforesaid statement, out of 3683 bighas of land only 192 bighas 17 biswas of land was shown to be grove land exempted from the ceiling area, while the rest of the land was proposed to be declared as surplus land. The petitioners filed objections before the Prescribed Authority, challenging validity of the notice on several grounds; they asserted that no part of their land was liable to be declared surplus and that the Prescribed Authority could not revise its earlier order dated 12th March, 1962. On 30-5-1969 they made an application before the Prescribed Authority, that the order dated 12-3-1962 was binding between the parties, and redetermination of ceiling area of the petitioners' holding was permissible under the law, hence relief was claimed that the objection be allowed and the notice dated 31st January, 1969 be discharged. A reply to that application was filed on behalf of the State. After hearing the arguments at length the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30th May, 1969 held that the notice issued to the petitioners was valid and, therefore, he rejected petitioners' application. A reply to that application was filed on behalf of the State. After hearing the arguments at length the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30th May, 1969 held that the notice issued to the petitioners was valid and, therefore, he rejected petitioners' application. The petitioners, it appears, obtained adjournments on several dates for bringing some stay order, but they failed to do so, therefore, date was fixed for evidence. On 26th August, 1969 the petitioners however, made another application before the Prescribed Authority raising practically the same objections which had been raised by them in their earlier application dated 30th May, 1969, with prayer that the preliminary points raised by them be decided first, before proceeding on merits. By his order dated 9th September, 1969 the Prescribed Authority held that the preliminary objections had already been decided on 30th May, 1969 and the petitioners had been obtaining adjournments with intention to delay the proceedings, he, therefore, rejected the petitioners' application dated 26th August, 1969 and fixed 16th September, 1969 for their evidence. The petitioners thereupon filed appeals before the District judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 9th September, 1969. The District judge dismissed the appeals, on the ground, that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 13 of the Act. The petitioners in the present petition have challenged validity of the notice dated 13th February, 1965 and the two orders of the Prescribed Authority, and the order of the District judge dismissing their appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has first urged; the impugned notice dated 13-2-1969 issued under Section 29 (b) read with Section 10 (2) was invalid, on the ground that an exemption, once, granted under Section 6 (1) of the Ceiling Act in respect of grove land, cannot be withdrawn; the action of the Prescribed Authority in issuing the said notice and also the subsequent proceedings for determining the surplus area were all without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn support to his argument by referring to Section 6 of the Act, which enumerates categories for exemption of land from the ceiling area. Clause (1) of Section 6 lays down that if a land was grove land existing as such prior to 1st of May, 1969, then that land was exempt from the ceiling area. Other categories of land enumerated in various clauses to Section 6 have also been exempted. Clause (1) of Section 6 lays down that if a land was grove land existing as such prior to 1st of May, 1969, then that land was exempt from the ceiling area. Other categories of land enumerated in various clauses to Section 6 have also been exempted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that Section 29 which provides for the treating such exempted land as surplus land on losing its character, does not apply to grove land exempted by sub-sec. (1) of Section 6 of the Act. According to the learned counsel under Section 6 (1) of the Act grove land is exempted only if it existed as such prior to 1st May, 1959, therefore, there is no question of its losing its character as grove land after the imposition of ceiling; Sec. 29 does not at all affect the exempted area of grove land even after it ceases to be grove land, therefore, any notice issued under Sec. 29(b) read with Section 10 (2) of the Act, for the determination of surplus land, is illegal. 4. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act. The Act was enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature in 1961 with the object of ensuring increased agricultural production, to provide land for landless agricultural labourers, and for more equitable distribution of land, as indicated by the preamble to the Act. There was great inequity among the cultivators of the State. Some of the big farmers had huge areas of land with them while others who had no land at all, had to work only as labourers on the land belonging to the big farmers. In order to remove this inequality among the cultivators and to provide for equitable distribution of land, the State Legislature enacted this Act. Sec. 5 of the Act prohibits a tenureholder to hold any area in excess of `ceiling area' notwithstanding to the contrary in any law, custom or usage, for the time being in force. "Ceiling Area" is determined on the principles laid down in Section 4 of the Act which provides that the ceiling area of a tenureholder shall be 40 acres of fair quality land. The ceiling area in other cases is flexible on the basis of family members and also on the basis of quality of land. Secs. "Ceiling Area" is determined on the principles laid down in Section 4 of the Act which provides that the ceiling area of a tenureholder shall be 40 acres of fair quality land. The ceiling area in other cases is flexible on the basis of family members and also on the basis of quality of land. Secs. 6 and 7 lay down various categories of land mentioned therein which are exempt from ceiling area. Any land falling within those categories is not to be taken into account for purposes of determining the ceiling area. Secs. 10, 11, and 12 regulate proceedings for determination of surplus land. An order passed under Secs. 11 and 12 of the Act determining surplus area is appealable under Section 13 before the District judge who is required to decide the appeal after hearing the parties, his decision is final and conclusive. Sec. 14 provides for acquisition of surplus land determined under the Act. Sec. 16 provides for settlement of, part of surplus land for planting grove with the tenureholder, in addition to his ceiling area on an undertaking given by him that he would plant grove on that land. Chapter III of the Act provides for determination and payment of compensation to the tenureholders in respect of surplus land acquired from them. Chapter IV provides for allotment and letting out of surplus land and also for use of surplus land for other public purposes. Sec. 29 lays down that even after the imposition of ceiling area, if any land is acquired by a tenure holder under a decree or order of any court or as a result of succession or transfer, other than gift or sale, such land, together with the land already held by him, if exceeds the ceiling area, it shall be liable to be treated as surplus land. similarly, if any part or the whole of the land of a tenureholder which was exempted under Section 6 or 7 of the Act loses its character so as to cease to fall under any of the categories mentioned therein, or if the land on which a grove had been planted under Section 16, ceases to be grove land, such land, shall be liable to be treated as surplus land. Sec. 30 lays down procedure for determination of surplus land regarding future acquisitions. Sec. 30 lays down procedure for determination of surplus land regarding future acquisitions. Chapter V makes provision for miscellaneous matters including procedure required to be followed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. The purpose and object of the Act is clearly discernible from the various provisions of the Act. The Legislature has made detailed provision to ensure that no tenure holder is allowed to have more than the ceiling area permissible under the Act at any point of time for purposes of agricultural cultivation. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, exemption once granted by the Prescribed Authority in respect of a grove land, is final for all times to come, and that exemption cannot be withdrawn even though such grove-land is bereft of any trees and the open land is used for cultivation. The argument is wholly misconceived. Legislature has taken care to ensure that unscrupulous persons are not allowed to defeat the object of the Act by further acquisions of land; and for that purpose it has enacted Section 29 conferring powers on the Prescribed Authority to declare surplus land and to acquire the same whenever a tenure holder is found to have land in excess of the ceiling area or whenever the exempted land ceases to maintain its character, so as to fall outside the categories enumerated in Secs. 6 and 7 of the Act. The authorities under the Act have to keep constant watch on the area held by a tenureholder to ensure that the provisions of the Act are not violated by any tenureholder, it is a continuing process. It would be pertinent to reproduce Secs. 6 and 7 of the Act. The authorities under the Act have to keep constant watch on the area held by a tenureholder to ensure that the provisions of the Act are not violated by any tenureholder, it is a continuing process. It would be pertinent to reproduce Secs. 6 and 7 of the Act : "6-EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE IMPOSITION OF CEILING:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus land of, a tenure holder- (i) grove land existing as such prior to the first day of May, 1959; (ii) land used for industrial purposes within the meaning of Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; (iii) land, not exceeding two acres in area, used for cattle shed, compost pits, threshing floor or for such other purposes as may be prescribed; (iv) land occupied by a residential house with the area appurtenant thereto; (v) land used as cremation ground or as a graveyard, but excluding cultivated land; (vi) land used for tea, coffee or rubber plantations, and to the extent prescribed, land `required for purposes ancillary there to and development of such plantations; (vii) land used for pharmacological and such (herbal and other plantations) as the State Government may by notification in the official gazette exempt; (viii) land held by or under a religious or charitable waqf, trust or endowment from before the first day of May, 1969; EXPLANATION-For purposes of this clause a charitable or relegious Waqf trust or endowment shall have the same meaning as in Section 76 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; (ix) land held for the purposes of an educational institution by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, or by any body corporate; (x) land held by `Gosadans' and `Goshalas' recognised by the State Government in the manner prescribed; (xi) land, which is the property of the Union Government, and land vested in or in possession of the State Government or any local authority including a Gaon Sabha, other than land let out for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (14) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; (xii) land vested in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority under Section 117 or Sec. 117-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, other than land let out under that Act; (xiii) land held by a Bhoodan Yagna Committee for distribution in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, other than land in respect whereof a grant has been made under that act; (xiv) land held by the Ruler of an erstwhile merged State which because of the conditions of the merger agreement between him and the Government of India or the collateral letters appended thereto cannot be acquired by the State Government without his concurrence; (xv) land held by and in its own name by a co-operative society where the bulk of the operations on such land relating to agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, including pisciculture and poultry farming, are performed by members of the society; (xvi) land acquired by any Co-operative Society by purchase from a tenure-holder in lieu of mortgage debt; (xvii) land, other than land used for purely agricultural purposes, included in specialised farm and exclusively devoted to poultry farming or dairying or other such purposes, as may be prescribed; EXPLANATION-Land for the purposes of this clause shall include land, exclusively used by the tenureholder for growing of fodder for purposes of his dairy. (xviii) land let out after the enforcement of this Act to a Government lessee for reclamation and cultivation or for cultivation of prescribed specialised crops or for other such purposes as may be prescribed; and (xix) land covered by farm roads, which are used for vehicular traffic throughout the year." "7. EXEMPTION OF LAND UNDER CULTIVATION OF `PAN' `KEORA' `BELA' ETC. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the land of a tenure holder used for cultivation of `Pan' `Keora', `Bela', `Chameli' or `Gulab' where such person- (a) has no land used for any other cultivation; or (b) declares all the land used for other cultivation as surplus land under Section 9 or 10; shall be exempt from the imposition of ceiling." 6. Under Section 6 various categories of land, such as grove land, land used for industrial purposes, land used for cattle shed, compost pits, thrashing floor, land occupied by residential houses, land used as Cremation ground, land used for tea, coffee or other plantation, land used for pharmalogical and herbal plants and land held by religious and charitable waqf, land held for purposes of educational institution and other public purposes mentioned in the various Sub-clauses of Section 6 have been exempted from the ceiling area. Under Section 7 land used for cultivation of Pan, Keora, Bela, Chameli or Gulab have also been exempted. Various categories mentioned in the different Sub-clauses of Section 6 are not a permanent nature. By lapse of time or by a deliberate action of a tenureholder, such exempted land may be brought under cultivation, as a result of which the tenureholder may possess land in excess of the ceiling area permitted under the Act. If that is allowed to be done the very purpose of the Act would be defeated, therefore, Legislature though it fit to make provision in the Act and to meet the probable mischief. Sec. 29 was enacted to ensure that no tenureholder is allowed to be in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area permitted under the Act. Sec. 29 of the Act runs as under :- "29. Sec. 29 was enacted to ensure that no tenureholder is allowed to be in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area permitted under the Act. Sec. 29 of the Act runs as under :- "29. FURTHER ACQUISITION:- Where, after the imposition of ceiling under this Act- (a) any land has come in possession of a tenure holder under a decree or order of any court, or as a result of succession or transfer, other than gift or sale, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him; or (b) the whole or any part of the land of a tenureholder exempted under Section 6 or Section 7 so loses its character as to cease to fall under any of the categories mentioned therein, or if the land on which a grove has been planted under Section 16 ceases to be grove land such land shall be liable to be treated as surplus land." The above section confers power on the Prescribed Authority to declare surplus land, if after the imposition of ceiling a tenureholder, subsequently acquires land which would exceed the ceiling area. Clause (b) of Section 29 lays down that if the category on the basis of which land was exempted under Section 6 or 7 so loses its character, as to cease to fall under any of the categories mentioned in Section 6 or Section 7, such land shall be liable to be treated as surplus land. This may be illustrated by referring to some of the categories mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. In a case where land used for industrial purposes was exempted at the time of the imposition of ceiling, but subsequently it was found that the owner of the land had ceased to use that land for industrial purposes, instead he was using that land for cultivation, in that event provisions of Section 29, clause (b) would come into play. Similarly, if a grove land, which was exempted under Section 6 of the Act, cases to be grove, it is liable to be treated as surplus land. 7. Similarly, if a grove land, which was exempted under Section 6 of the Act, cases to be grove, it is liable to be treated as surplus land. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the category contemplated by clause (i) of Section 6 in the case of grove-land "refers to groveland existing as such prior to the first day of May, 1959." According to the learned counsel any grove-land which was existing as such prior to the first day of May, I959, can never lose its character, even though the trees may fall down or even if the land is used for cultivation. I have considered this question carefully. In my opinion, the argument is illusory. The category as contemplated by clause (1) of Section 6 is "grove-land". The Legislature, while granting exemption to grove land, thought it proper to fix a date with reference to which the nature of grove-land was determinable. The Bill relating to the Act in question was introduced in the U.P. Legislature in the year 1959 and, therefore, the Legislature took care to fix a date for granting exemption to grove-lands, so that a tenureholder may not be able to circumvent the Act to claim exemption by planting grove after the introduction of the Bill in the Legislature. The various Categories enumerated in the different Sub-clauses of Section 6, refer only to that land which have a particular character and used for purposes specified therein. The category in the case of clause (1) of Section 6 is the grove-land and not the grove-land as it existed on the first day of May, 1959. The date 1-5-1959 was mentioned not as a part of that category, but only to facilitate the determination of grove-land with reference to that date. Therefore, if a grove land, ceases to be grove land on account of change in its character, and use of the land, the provisions contained in Section 29 (b) of the Act would be attracted and, such land shall obviously be liable to be treated as surplus land. The petitioner's contention, therefore, that a grove-land exempted under clause (1) of Section 6 of the Act is final for all times to come, and, such land cannot be declared surplus under Section 29 (b) of the Act, even though trees might fall and the land is brought under cultivation, is devoid of any substance. 8. The petitioner's contention, therefore, that a grove-land exempted under clause (1) of Section 6 of the Act is final for all times to come, and, such land cannot be declared surplus under Section 29 (b) of the Act, even though trees might fall and the land is brought under cultivation, is devoid of any substance. 8. There is yet another reason for rejecting the petitioner's above contention. The purpose of the Act, as noted above, is to restrict a tenureholder holding cultivated area in excess of the limits fixed by the Act itself. The legislative intent is apparent from the various provisions of the Act, that ceiling area once determined or the exemption once granted is not final. It is a continuing process and the authorities have to ensure that at no point of time ceiling area permissible under the Act is exceeded. Apart from Section 29, there are other provisions in the Act which show that intention and purpose. Sec. 4 of the Act lays down principles for determining ceiling area. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 4 declares that the ceiling area of a tenureholder shall be 40 acres of fair quality land, but in cases where the family of a tenureholder consists of more than five members, the ceiling area of such tenureholder is permitted to exceed by eight acres for every additional member of the family, subject to a maximum of 24 such acres, but the proviso thereto makes it clear that if at any time the family comes to consist of not more than five members, then, in that event any land held by the tenureholder in excess of 40 acres of fair quality land then such land shall be liable to be treated as surplus land. Under Section 16 of the Act a tenureholder was undertaken to plant grove is entitled to ten percent of his surplus land, but clause (2) of Section 16 lays down that where grove is not planted on the land settled under Sub-Sec. (I) of Section 16, such land is liable to be resumed as surplus. The provisions contained in these sections would, therefore, show that the Legislature intended that a tenureholder should not be allowed to posses land in excess of the ceiling area. Similarly Section 29 lays down that if any area exempted on account of its being covered by one of the categories mentioned in Secs. The provisions contained in these sections would, therefore, show that the Legislature intended that a tenureholder should not be allowed to posses land in excess of the ceiling area. Similarly Section 29 lays down that if any area exempted on account of its being covered by one of the categories mentioned in Secs. 6 and 7 of the Act, loses its character whereby nature of the land is changed, so as to fall out of the said categories, such land is liable to be declared surplus. The Legislature intended that the exempted land should be used for the purposes for which it was being used at the time of exemption. The continuity of the category and the use of the land for that purpose is contemplated under the Act. Various categories of land mentioned in Section 6 would show that those lands are fixed for certain purposes and if the land is not used subsequently for that purpose, it loses the exemption. If the petitioner's contention that a grove land can never be acquired or declared surplus even though it ceases to be grove land, is accepted, the very object and purpose of the Act would be defeated. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that the courts should not interpret provisions of an Act in such a manner as to defeat the object of the Legislature, provided it is reasonably possible to do so. See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sardar Teja Singh, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 352, and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property v. Official Receiver, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 951. The construction of Section 29 of the Act as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not advance objects of the Act, on the other hand, it will render Section 29 nugatory, which will obviously be against the very object of enacting Section 29 of the Act. Having regard to the scheme, purpose and object of the Act, it would be reasonable to interpret Section 29 and Section 6 of the Act in a manner which would advance the purpose of the Act. The notice by the Prescribed Authority is, therefore, legal and valid. It is no doubt true that the Prescribed Authority must satisfy itself objectively after hearing the petitioner that the grove land has ceased to be grove land before it can treat that land as surplus land. 9. The notice by the Prescribed Authority is, therefore, legal and valid. It is no doubt true that the Prescribed Authority must satisfy itself objectively after hearing the petitioner that the grove land has ceased to be grove land before it can treat that land as surplus land. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the District Judge committed a patent error of law in holding that the petitioner's appeal was not maintainable. According to the learned counsel the petitioner's appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Act as the Prescribed Authority had rejected their objection. I have considered this question, but I do not find any force in the contention. Sec. 13 lays down that any party aggrieved by an order under sub-sec. (2) of Section 11 or Section 12 of the Act may within thirty days of the date of the order prefer an appeal to the District judge within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated. According to the petitioners the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 9th September, 1969 was an order passed under Section 12 of the Act, hence, an appeal was maintainable. Sec. 12 confers power on the Prescribed Authority to decide objections filed against the proposed statement of surplus land after affording the parties reasonable opportunity of hearing and of producing evidence. The Prescribed Authority is further required to record reasons in the order determining the surplus land. Sec. 12 and 13 read together, make it clear that appeal is provided for against the order of the Prescribed Authority deciding the objections. No appeal is contemplated under Section 13 against interlocutory orders of the Prescribed Authority. Only those orders, whereby the Prescribed Authority decides objections are appealable. No appeal is provided for against an interlocutory order passed on an application when the proceedings do not terminate before him. If the objections still remain to be decided, then no appeal would lie against an order passed in miscellaneous matters. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the the Prescribed Authority in the present case had in fact decided the petitioners' objections and, therefore, their appeal was maintainable. While considering this question, it is necessary to advert to the sequence of events which led to the filing of the appeal before the District Judge. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the the Prescribed Authority in the present case had in fact decided the petitioners' objections and, therefore, their appeal was maintainable. While considering this question, it is necessary to advert to the sequence of events which led to the filing of the appeal before the District Judge. As already noted, the petitioners filed a detailed objection under Section 10 (2) of the Act on 13th February, 1969 raising objections against the proceedings for the determination of surplus land under Section 29 of the Act on legal grounds as well as on facts. The objection has not been decided as yet and the proceedings for determination of surplus land are still pending before the Prescribed Authority. After the evidence is recorded, the Prescribed Authority may come to a conclusion that the proposed area of land was not liable to be declared as surplus land. No adjudication has taken place, and no evidence was led by the petitioners. On 30th May, 1969 the petitioners made an application stating that since the Prescribed Authority had already exempted the area in question by his order dated 12th March, 1962, no subsequent determination of surplus land could legally be done, hence the notice was illegal. So no further proceeding should be taken in the matter. That application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 30th May, 1969. The petitioners did not challenge that order either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court. The petitioners, however, made another application on 26th August, 1969 before the Prescribed Authority raising substantially the same grounds which had already been raised in their application dated 30-5-1969 for declaring the notice illegal and for terminating the proceedings for determination of surplus land. In the second application a Prayer was made that the legal question raised in the application may be decided first before proceeding on merits. As already observed, legal questions raised by the petitioners had already been decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30th May, 1969. The application dated 26th August, 1969 was merely repetition of the same grounds, therefore, the Prescribed Authority, by his order dated 9th September, 1969 rightly rejected the second application. The Prescribed Authority, thereupon fixed 16th September, 1969 for recording evidence of the petitioners. The application dated 26th August, 1969 was merely repetition of the same grounds, therefore, the Prescribed Authority, by his order dated 9th September, 1969 rightly rejected the second application. The Prescribed Authority, thereupon fixed 16th September, 1969 for recording evidence of the petitioners. It is evidence that the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 9th September, 1969 did not dispose of or decide the petitioners' objection, he merely rejected the petitioners' application raising preliminary objections. No appeal is contemplated or provided for in the Act against any such order of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners had filed appeal against the order dated 9-9-1969, hence their appeal was wholly mis-conceived. The petitioners' objections are still pending before the Prescribed Authority and an appeal would lie only when a final decision is taken by the Prescribed Authority. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no error of law apparent on the face of record in the order of the District Judge. The petitioners' appeal, in my opinion, was rightly rejected by the District Judge. The petitioners' contention, therefore, must fail. 11. No other ground has been pressed before me. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, with costs. The interim order dated 17th April, 1970 staying proceedings before the Prescribed Authority is discharged.