ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Basti, dated 18-11-76 in Misc. Appeal No. 713 of 1975 Bijendra Bahadur Pal v. State of U. P. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details it appears that the petitioners father Rudra Pal Singh had executed a gift deed and will in respect of his property whereby he gave his land to his grand-son and his wife. The petitioner has been served with a notice to answer as to why certain area may not be declared surplus. The petitioner contested the notice on the ground that the land gifted by his father to his sons may not be treated as the land of the petitioner and the surplus area as indicated in the notice was not correct. I have been informed that the petitioner had also put forward a claim that his family consisted of 8 members and on that score he was entitled to additional hectares of land. 3. Both the authorities have not accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the present petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the authorities the petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition and has prayed for quashing the impugned judgment of the appellate authority dated 18th Nov., 1976 as well as the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 30th June, 1975. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 1s contended before me again the two points mentioned by me above in his objection and he has emphasised that the ceiling authorities have patently erred in not excluding the gifted land by his father to the petitioners sons and they have wrongly determined the ceiling limit of the present petitioner. In this connection the relevant portion of the judgment of the appellate authority is being reproduced as below: - "Since the names of the sons and mother of the appellant have been mutated and no notice has been issued to them, therefore, the land recorded in their names cannot be declared surplus but the same had to be taken into consideration while determining the surplus land with the appellant. The learned Prescribed Authority has rightly not given any benefit to the appellant of the transfer made by Rudra Pal Singh by way of will in favour of his wife and gift in favour of his grand-sons. This point is decided against the appellant." 6. The learned Prescribed Authority has rightly not given any benefit to the appellant of the transfer made by Rudra Pal Singh by way of will in favour of his wife and gift in favour of his grand-sons. This point is decided against the appellant." 6. It is noteworthy that Rudra Pal Singh, father of the present petitioner had died on 9-4-1973. The notification u/s. 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act regarding the District of Basti was made in the month of Sept., 1973. It appears that originally notice was issued in the name of dead person. But thereafter the notice was Issued in the name of the present petitioner. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the appellate authority has relied upon R. 19 (3) of the aforesaid Act while dealing with the claim of the present petitioner. Recently R. 19, sub-clause (2) of the Act has been deleted by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in Civil Misc. Writ No. 12987 of 1975 Horam Singh v. State of U.P. decided on 20-9-1978 (reported in 1979 All LJ 35), hence I find that the appellate authority has not examined the petitioners claim in right perspective. 8. However, the appellate authority has patently erred in ignoring the transfer deed executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioners mother and the petitioners sons. On the death of the petitioners father, the petitioner would be entitled to a share in the property left by his father. The land transferred by his father during his lifetime would not devolve upon the petitioner. As the appellate authority has observed that the Prescribed Authority was right in not giving any benefit to the appellant of the transfer made by his father through a will or gift, I think that the appellate authority has patently erred in fixing the ceiling limit of the petitioner. The appellate authority should examine in accordance with law as to what area was really held by the petitioner on 8th June, 1973 and thereafter the surplus area of the petitioner should be declared. 9. The appellate authority should examine in accordance with law as to what area was really held by the petitioner on 8th June, 1973 and thereafter the surplus area of the petitioner should be declared. 9. On the facts of the present case it is not permissible in law to call upon the petitioner to indicate the area held by his father and mention of R. 19, sub-clause (2) of the aforesaid Ceiling Act in the impugned judgment indicates that the appellate authority had not appreciated the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner. 10. I am satisfied if the petitioners share in property determined by the ceiling authorities qua 8th June, 1973 the declaration of surplus area of the petitioner would be materially affected. In the circumstances of the present case it is proper that the impugned judgments of the ceiling authorities should be quashed and the Prescribed Authority should be directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, 11. It is also necessary to mention that if the petitioner had claimed right on the basis of 8 members in his family, the ceiling authorities should examine the petitioners claim in the light of the evidence on the record and it should indicate as to whether the petitioner is entitled to additional hectares of land in view of the provisions of Section 5, sub-cl. (3) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 12. For the reasons given above, the writ petitioner succeeds and the impugned judgments of the ceiling authorities are hereby quashed and the Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the petitioners claim in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs.