ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr dated 22nd December, 1976 in Ceiling Appeal No. 228 of 1976 Smt. Sunehro v. State of U. P. and others. 2. It appears that a notice under Sec-on 10 sub-clause (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was served upon tenure-holder Harbans Singh, who contested the notice. During the proceedings against Harbans Singh, the present petitioners were situated in place of the deceased tenure-holder. Later on the aforesaid proceeding was wrongly abated. Thereafter a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Sunehro widow of deceased Harbans Singh asking her to show cause as to why 7 Bighas 6 Biswas of the holding of the tenure-holder should not be declared as surplus area. The petitioner No. 1 Smt. Sunehro contested the notice on the allegations that her husband had executed a will dated 29-1-1972 whereby she was not only legal heir of her deceased husband, hence the statement given along with the notice served upon petitioner No. 1 was wrong and that petitioner No. 1 had no surplus area and that notice should be discharged. 3. The prescribed Authority also issued notices to the other heirs indicated by the present petitioner No. 1 who also filed objection alleging that tenure-holder Harbans Singh had died on 10-8-1975 and he had executed a will on 29-1-1972 and that the notice issued to deceased Harbans Singh had been discharged. Therefore, the subsequent notice to the widow was barred by Section 11 C. P. C. It was further alleged that the proceedings against Smt. Sunehro were barred in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, and therefore, it was prayed that the notice be discharged. 4. The Prescribed Authority through its judgment dated 7-10-1975 did not accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner substantially and had declared 6 Bighas 16 Biswas 6 Biswansis as surplus area of the tenure-holder. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 22nd December, 1976. The petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the appellate authority. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 22nd December, 1976. The petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the appellate authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that once the proceedings initiated against the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh had been abated, it was not open to the Ceiling Authorities to have initiated fresh proceedings against the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why larger area of the original tenure-holder should not be declared as surplus area. In short, the learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that the original notice issued under Section 10 subclause (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and served upon the tenure-holder Harbans Singh had indicated that only 1 bigha and odd was surplus area, hence in the second notice larger area could not be indicated as surplus area of the original tenure-holder. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has seriously contended that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners were misconceived and they were not called upon to meet any mistake apparent on the face of the record contemplated by the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act, hence the proceedings should be dropped against them. 7. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has very much emphasised that once the proceedings had been abated against the original tenure-holder, fresh proceedings against the present petitioners were barred. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners at any rate larger area than the area indicated in the notice served upon the original tenure-holder could not be declared as surplus area of the tenure-holder in the proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition. He has further contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier proceedings which had been abated, hence fresh notice to petitioner No. 1 was wholly unjustified. 8. Learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. He has further contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier proceedings which had been abated, hence fresh notice to petitioner No. 1 was wholly unjustified. 8. Learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. He has submitted that earlier proceedings started against the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh had been wrongly abated and there is no legal bar for the Ceiling Authorities to call upon the petitioners to indicate as to what surplus are, was held by the original tenure-holder on 8th June, 1973. He has further contended that the petitioner has not attached the relevant notice and statement served upon the present petitioners, hence it cannot be substantiated that the petitioners were called upon to show their surplus area and not with regard to the surplus area held by the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh on 8th June, 1973. 9. According to the learned counsel for the State if the Ceiling Authorities correctly determined the surplus area in subsequent proceedings, this court should not interfere with the impugned judgment. He has also emphasised that by abatement of the earlier proceedings there was no final decision in favour of the petitioners which may act as a bar of res judicata. According to him the mistake was apparent that the land belonging to petitioner No. 1 was not clubbed with the land of the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh, hence only one bigha and odd was shown as surplus area of the original tenure-holder whereas the correct area should have been shown as 7 bighas 6 biswansis as surplus land of the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh. 10. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a ruling reported in AIR 1969 Mad 426 Kamatchi Ammal v. Athigamudaya Pillai and also another ruling reported in AIR 1933 Lah 752 Raju v. Ram Chandra in support of his contention that once the proceedings had been abated, fresh proceedings could not be started. The aforesaid rulings are based on the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and they are inapplicable to the abatement passed under the provisions of "the Act" in the present case. The aforesaid rulings are based on the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and they are inapplicable to the abatement passed under the provisions of "the Act" in the present case. There is no provision analogous to the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 C. P. C. in "the Act" whereby re-determination of the same question can be said to be barred. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Ceiling Authorities were not justified in initiating fresh proceedings. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record due to which the Ceiling Authorities could exercise jurisdiction under Section 13-A of the Act. He has placed reliance upon a large number of rulings dealing with the question as to what is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not necessary for me to deal with those rulings in the present case as the error apparent on the face of the record is very clear as the Ceiling Authorities had ignored a provision of law while issuing notice in the name of the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh at the earlier occasion. The second notice issued in the name of the petitioner No. 1 was only rectified statement to the effect that the original tenure-holder had larger area on 8th June, 1973, but the same was not indicated as the authorities were unaware of the holding held by the petitioner No. 1. In law the holding held by petitioner No. 1 should have been clubbed with the land held by the original tenure-holder. In this view of the matter the larger area shown in the notice giving rise to the present writ petition appears to be correct and in consonance with the provisions of law prevailing at present as well as at the time when the first notice was issued in the name of the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh. Thus, according to me the mistake is apparent on the face of the record due to ignoring specific provisions of law while issuing earlier notice. 13. Thus, according to me the mistake is apparent on the face of the record due to ignoring specific provisions of law while issuing earlier notice. 13. For the sake of arguments, even if, the Ceiling Authorities have proceeded against the petitioner in an irregular manner, but they have arrived at a correct conclusion, hence I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State that this is not a fit case in which I should interfere with the impugned judgments of the Ceiling Authorities by the petitioners. 14. It is true that due to amendment in the Act the Ceiling Authorities were not justified in issuing second notice to the petitioners. As the order of abatement has been passed in this case on 4-2-1976, but, to my mind, if the Ceiling Authorities realise their mistake and give proper opportunity to the petitioners for showing cause as to why a larger area of the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh should not be declared as surplus area and thereafter they arrived at correct conclusion in determining the surplus area of the original tenure-holder, they have done substantial justice between the parties and this is not a fit case where I should interfere with the impugned judgments in the] exercise of my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. Since the petitioner No. 1 has not filed the notice served upon her along with the statement it is difficult to say that the proceedings were initiated against her under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, and the proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition are misconceived in declaring surplus area held by the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh. In the present proceedings the land held by the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh has been fixed, hence on the death of the original tenure-holder the petitioners would get right in the property held by the original tenure-holder on the date of his death in accordance with law. The petitioners have failed to satisfy me that the determination of surplus area with regard to the original tenure-holder Harbans Singh in respect of his land held on 8th June, 1973 has been wrongly done by the Ceiling Authorities. According to me the impugned judgments do not suffer from any mistake of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. 16. According to me the impugned judgments do not suffer from any mistake of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. 16. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly' dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.