ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts In brief are these. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) and he filed objections. The objections were heard and decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the appellate court partly allowed the appeal by its judgment dated 30-11-1976, a true copy whereof is annexure 1 to the writ petition. It seems that thereafter an application for review was made and the review application was allowed by the appellate court by Its order dated 28th Jan., 1977 a true copy whereof is annexure % to the writ petition. As a result of the said order dated 28tb January, 1977, allowing the review petition the appellate court finally declared that the petitioner did not have any surplus land in his hand, It seems that earlier a notice in form No. 13 C. L. J. (H. P) Act was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause against the draft compensation roll. A true copy of the said notice is annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his objection, a true copy whereof is annexure 4 and brought it to the notice of the Prescribed Authority that in view of the appellate courts order dated 28-1-1977 the petitioner had been declared to have no surplus land. It was further stated in the objection that the earlier ceiling proceedings which were numbered as Case No. 52 of 1974 had already abated. The Prescribed Authority by his impugned order dated 25th April, 1977, a true copy whereof is annexure 5, ordered as under: "No abatement of the case No. 52/74 is permissible under law. It can be abated only if the appeal was pending before the court on 10-10-1975. In the instant case the appeal was decided in Sept. 1975. Therefore no case for abatement arises." 3. The petitioner has now come up in the instant petition feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid proceedings which resulted in the issuance of the said notice in C. L. H. form No. 13 to the petitioner and in the Prescribed Authoritys order dated 25th April 1977. In my opinion, the petitioners grievance is genuine. Therefore no case for abatement arises." 3. The petitioner has now come up in the instant petition feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid proceedings which resulted in the issuance of the said notice in C. L. H. form No. 13 to the petitioner and in the Prescribed Authoritys order dated 25th April 1977. In my opinion, the petitioners grievance is genuine. It is obvious that when the second ceiling proceedings started and ultimately culminated in the final order passed by the appellate court declaring the petitioner to be possessed of no surplus land, then it was not open to the Prescribed Authority to seek to take recourse to the earlier ceiling proceedings wherein certain land had been declared to be surplus. It is obvious that both the first ceiling and the second ceiling proceedings cannot coexist in the case of the same tenure-holder. That will be am unbelievable situation. It looks that the fresh notice under Section 10 (2) was issued to the tenure-holder on 29th November, 1975, with the aid of the provision contained in Section 27 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975). The said sub-section very clearly laid down that within a period of two years from the commencement of the said Ordinance the Prescribed Authority could re-determine surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by the said Ordinance, notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land. The Prescribed Authority in his impugned order dated 25th April, 1977, has referred to the appeal which was decided in September 1975. The said appeal arose out of the initial ceiling proceedings and, therefore, the appeal stood decided on 29th Nov., 1975, when the fresh notice was issued under Section 10 (2) with the aid of the said Section 27 (3) of the said ordinance. The notice was obviously good because even though the appeal arising out of the earlier proceedings had been decided still, in view of the clear provision made in sub-sec. (3) for such a contingency, the fresh notice was a valid one. In my view therefore, the Prescribed Authority was wrong in not allowing the petitioners application dated 8th Feb., 1977, a true copy whereof is annexure 4 and his order dated 25th April, 1977, is liable to be quashed. (3) for such a contingency, the fresh notice was a valid one. In my view therefore, the Prescribed Authority was wrong in not allowing the petitioners application dated 8th Feb., 1977, a true copy whereof is annexure 4 and his order dated 25th April, 1977, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I allow the petition and quash the said order and I also quash the notice which was issue, to the petitioner in form No. 13 under R. 24, a true copy whereof is annexure 3. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.