JUDGMENT Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. 1. THIS is a second appeal by Ram Kumar plaintiff. He filed a suit in the court of the Munsif for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over plots Nos. 324 and 325/1, situated in village Ladar, Pargana and Tahsil Maudha, district Hamirpur. 2. THE plaint allegations were that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed plots since before the abolition of Zamindari, and these plots had formed the agricultural Chak of 30 Bighas of the plaintiff but by mistake the Lekhpal had wrongly entered the disputed plots in the revenue papers as Sirdari of some other persons, and later on account of the fictitious and incorrect entries in the revenue papers the name of Gopali defendant no. 1 came to be recorded ; that on account of the incorrect entries the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff necessitating the filing of the suit for permanent injunction after giving notice to the Gram Sabha and the State of Uttar Pradesh. These allegations were denied by the defendant Gopali who asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed plots and that these plots formed the joint tenancy of Har Bishal and Sheo Bishal, and under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the disputed plots were declared 'surplus land' of the aforesaid tenants, and thereafter these disputed plots vested in the Government which executed a Patta in favour of the defendant Gopali, and by virtue of this Patta he (Gopali) has been in possession and is the Sirdar of the disputed plots. It was also contended that the plaintiff did not raise any objection in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and. therefore the disputed plots were declared 'surplus land', and the order of the Prescribed Authority in that regard became final and conclusive and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the pleadings of the parties a preliminary :issue was framed by the Munsif to the effect : "Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? On the pleadings of the parties a preliminary :issue was framed by the Munsif to the effect : "Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? " On this issue the Munsif recorded the finding that according to the plaint allegations the plaintiff wanted a declaration of his title as Sirdar of the :disputed land and this could only be done under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the revenue court, and that the plaintiff by the present suit wanted to nullify the effect of the two enactments, that is, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The Munsif accordingly held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and he further opined that the plaint need not be returned for presentation to the proper court but it should be dismissed. He also observed that the plaintiff may take recourse to the remedy open to him under the existing enactments. 3. AGAINST this judgment and decree of the Munsif the plaintiff went up in appeal and the learned Civil Judge dimissed the appeal holding that the relief sought in the suit could be granted by the revenue court, and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and further that the plaintiff having failed to file any objection under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act before the Prescribed Authority in respect of the disputed plots which had been declared as 'surplus land' the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief from the civil court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs by the learned Civil Judge. 4. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs by the learned Civil Judge. 4. IN this second appeal by the plaintiff, it has been vehemently contended by Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly, that on the finding that on the plaint allegations the plaintiff could get his relief from the revenue court and the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the court below ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the revenue court and not to have dismissed the plaintiff's suit ; and secondly, that the plaintiff not being a party to the proceedings taken under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act there was no bar to the plaintiff instituting the present suit in the civil court for issue of permanent injunction. In support of the second contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Upper Ganges Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Civil Judge, Bijnor, AIR 1970 Allahabad 130. Sri R. Pandey has been heard at length in support of the above contentions. Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the learned Munsif was justified in dismissing the suit, holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction, and not returning the plaint to the plaintiff for filing in the revenue court. According to the learned counsel Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted, but since the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act had culminated by the publication of the notification under Section 14 of the said Act the suit could not have been filed even in the revenue court, and therefore the Munsif was justified in dismissing the suit and in refusing to return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper court. According to the learned counsel, after the publication of the notification under Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, all rights, titles and interests of persons in such land stand extinguished and the 'surplus land' vest in the Government, and thereafter no person could claim any interest in such land. 5. THE question which is at issue in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant has any right to file the suit for injunction in the civil court. According to the allegations in the plaint the plaintiff has been in possession for over 30 years of the disputed plots as Sirdar, but the Lekhpal had incorrectly entered the names of other persons than the plaintiff in the revenue papers in respect of these plots, and when the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession the plaintiff has come to the civil court for issue of permanent injunction. The defendant Gopali, on the other hand, has contended that the disputed land had been declared as 'surplus land' by the Prescribed Authority under; the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and therefore the land was notified and vested in the State which granted a lease to the defendant of the disputed land, and since the plaintiff had not preferred his objection under Section 14(3) of the said Act, therefore, the declaration by notification of the disputed land as 'surplus land' under Section 14(1) became final, and thereafter the rights, titles or interests of the plaintiff, if any, in the disputed land were extinguished and he could not file the suit in the civil court for a permanent injunction. Under Section 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, "the Prescribed Authority shall, by general notice, published in the Official Gazette, call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the date of enforcement of this Act, to submit to him within 30 days of the date of publication, of the notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars, as may be prescribed". In case of failure of the tenure holder to submit his statement as required under Section 9, the Prescribed Authority is empowered under Section 10 of the said Act to prepare statements and cause them to be served upon such tenure-holders who are required to file objections. Under Section 11(1) the Prescribed Authority after considering the objections determines the 'surpuls land' of the tenure-holders and under Section 11(3) such determination by the Prescribed Authority becomes final and conclusive and cannot be questioned in any Court of law. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 11, a tenure-holder if aggrieved by such order which may have been passed in his absence may prefer objection within 30 days of the passing of the order, and on showing sufficient cause have the order set aside. Section 13 of the said Act provides right to any aggrieved party to prefer an appeal to the District Judge within 30 days against any order passed under Sections 11 and 12 by the Prescribed Authority, and the order of the District Judge passed in appeal is final and conclusive. After the order of the Prescribed Authority, or the District Judge in appeal, as the case may be, has become final and conclusive the 'surplus land'. determined under Sections 11, 12 or 13 is then notified in the official gazette by the Prescribed Authority under Section 14 (I), and from the date of the notification such 'surplus land' under Section 14 (2) becomes vested in the Stated free from all encumbrances, and all.-' rights, titles and interests of all persons in such land stand extinguished. Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 14 of the said Act. provides that "any person claiming interest as a tenure-holder or, lessee in possession from the tenure-holder or a person interested in any encumbrances...in the 'surplus land' in respect, of which the notification has been published, may within 30 days thereof file an objection before the Prescribed Authority indicating the extent of his interest in such land", and the Prescribed Authority under sub-Section (4) shall dispose of the objections after giving the objector reasonable opportunity of being heard and producing evidence. If the objector is not satisfied with the order of the Prescribed Authority, then under sub-Section (5) of Section 14 he can prefer an appeal to the District Judge whose order would be final and conclusive and could not be questioned in any court of law. If the objector is not satisfied with the order of the Prescribed Authority, then under sub-Section (5) of Section 14 he can prefer an appeal to the District Judge whose order would be final and conclusive and could not be questioned in any court of law. Thus, from the scheme and the provisions of Section 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act it is amply clear that tenure-holders whether or not recorded in the revenue papers could prefer objection before the Prescribed Authority in proceedings initiated to implement the provisions of the said Act. It is also abundantly clear that even though the plaintiff may have been in possession of the disputed plots his right, title and interest in the said plots got extinguished under sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and he could have filed objection under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the said Act objecting to the disputed plots being notified as 'surplus land'. He could not file a suit either in the Civil Court or in the revenue court under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the Munsif ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the revenue court and not to have dismissed the suit has no substance. Under Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. In the instant case after the notification under Section 14 (1) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and no objection having been preferred under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 14 of the said Act, the notification became final and the rights, if any, of the plaintiff stood extinguished. Section 42 of the said Act makes Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to all proceedings, appeals, applications and objections under the said Act. Therefore, the only course open for the plaintiff was to seek his remedy before the Prescribed Authority, and if necessary by invoking the provision of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay by showing sufficient grounds therefor. Therefore, the only course open for the plaintiff was to seek his remedy before the Prescribed Authority, and if necessary by invoking the provision of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay by showing sufficient grounds therefor. The learned Munsif was justified in observing in the operative portion of his order that the plaintiff may take recourse to the remedy open to him under the existing enactments. 6. THIS second appeal (No. 1851 of 1974) of Ram Kumar has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim stay order dated 6-9-1974 passed by this Court is vacated. Appeal dismissed.