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 notice under Section 10 (21 was issued to the petitioner and he filed objections. The objections were decided by the prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the Additional District Judge, Dehra Dun heard and decided the appeal. The same was dismissed. Now, the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel raised three contentions before me. Firstly, he contended that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court were in error in not treating the petitioners holding as beyond the ambit of the ceiling law. Dehra Dun district was formerly a part of the Meerut Division but by the U.P. Governments Notification No. 5-3 (1)/1974 (327), published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 4-6-1975, the said district was made a part of the Garhwal Division. The Notification has been quoted in the judgment of the Appellate court and for the facility of reference, it is reproduced below "In exercise of the powers u/s 11 of the U. P. Land Reforms Act, 1901 (U.P. Act 3 of 1901). read with Section 2 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, (U. P. Act 1 of 1904) the Governor is pleased to alter with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, the limits at Meerut and Garhwal Divisions by including Dehra Dun district within the jurisdiction of Garhwal Division and excluding the said district from the Meerut Division, provided nothing in this notification shall affect any legal proceedings already commenced or pending in any court which has had to exercise the jurisdiction in respect of the said district." The earlier ceiling proceedings against the petitioner stood concluded with the prescribed Authoritys order dated 31st Dec. 1974, and, therefore, on the said date i. e. 4th June, 1975, no proceedings were pending and the learned counsel has emphasised that the Appellate court was not correct in treating the said proceedings as pending on 4th June, 1975. This argument seems to me to be correct. 1974, and, therefore, on the said date i. e. 4th June, 1975, no proceedings were pending and the learned counsel has emphasised that the Appellate court was not correct in treating the said proceedings as pending on 4th June, 1975. This argument seems to me to be correct. However, it has seemed to me that the petitioner was not entitled to claim that his holding situated in the Dehra Dun district should be deemed to have ceased to be attracted to the ceiling law in view of the aforesaid Notification dated 4th June, 1975 whereby the said district was made a part of the Garhwal Division. In this connection a reference to Section l of the Act has to be made. This Act was made applicable to the whole of Uttar Pradesh by sub-sec. (2) of Section 1. By sub-sec. (3) it was laid down :- "It shall come into force at once except in the areas mentioned in Section 2, where it shall come into force from such date and in such manner as may be notified under that section, .and different dates may be appointed for different area". 3. It will be seen that in clause (iii) of Section 2 only the pargana of Jaunsar-Bawar in the Dehra Dun district was mentioned. In other words, in respect of other parts of the Dehra Dun district, the Act undoubtedly came into force since its inception. As I read Sections 1 and 2 together, it seems to me that the legislative intention was clear that in respect of the areas mentioned in the different clauses of Section 2, the Act was to be extended by subsequent notifications of the State Govt. However, it was not the intention that in respect of those areas where the Act already stood applied, the applicability was to cease by virtue of any notification issued not under the Ceiling law but under the Land Revenue Act whereby the reshuffling might be done in respect of different divisions. It will be seen that the aforesaid notification dated 4th June, 1975, was issued under the U. P. Land Revenue Act and it had nothing to do with the ceiling law. It will be seen that the aforesaid notification dated 4th June, 1975, was issued under the U. P. Land Revenue Act and it had nothing to do with the ceiling law. In this view of the matter, I hold that the said notification in no way affected the ceiling law which continued to apply to the rest of the district of Dehra Dun except the pargana of Jaunsar-Bawar which was specifically mentioned in cl. (iii) of Section 2. The Act could be applied to the said pargana of Jaunsar-Bawar only when the State Government issues the notification under Section 2 of the Ceiling Act but we are not concerned with the said question. 4. Shri Prakash Gupta next contended that in the alternative, his client was entitled to the benefit of Section 4 (ii) (i) under which one and one-half hectares of single crop land or two and a half hectares of any unirrigated land shall count as one hectare of irrigated land. Counsel again placed reliance on the aforesaid notification dated 4th June, 1975, to contend that at the time when the determination was done by the Prescribed Authority as a result of the notice under Section 10 (2) which was issued to the petitioner on 7th Oct. 1975, the district of Dehra Dun had become a part of the Garhwal Division and, therefore, learned counsel contended that the benefit of sub-cl. (i) of cl. (ii) of Section 4 could have been extended to his client and the authorities below were wrong in not extending the said benefit. Again, it seems to me that the same difficulty stands in the way of the petitioner as it stood in respect of the first contention which was raised by the learned counsel. Before the issuance of the said notification, it cannot be denied, that only Jaunsar-Bawar pargana of Dehra Dun district was entitled to the benefit of sub-cl. (i) of the said provision and the rest of the Dehra Dun district was not entitled to the benefit of the said sub-clause. It could not be the legislative intention that by placing the Dehr.a Dun district in the Garhwal Division and shifting it from ;the Meerut Division, it was the intention that a fresh benefit should be extended to the rest of the district of Dehra Dun by making sub-cl. It could not be the legislative intention that by placing the Dehr.a Dun district in the Garhwal Division and shifting it from ;the Meerut Division, it was the intention that a fresh benefit should be extended to the rest of the district of Dehra Dun by making sub-cl. (i) applicable to such areas to which formerly the said sub-clause did not apply. It should be seen that Section 4 (ii) has particularised certain areas in certain parts of the State which are known to be less fertile and, therefore, a higher ratio has been prescribed for calculating the unirrigated land into irrigated land in such particularised areas. It is, therefore, obvious that when Section 4 was placed on the statute book the framers of the Act treated only one pargana of the Dehra Dun district, namely, Jaunsar-Bawar where it was felt that in view of the terrain, the benefit of sub-cl. (i) should be extended. It cannot be said that any such physical transformation in the rest of the district of Dehra Dun took place which changed the original position and induced that the other areas of the said district should also be entitled to the benefit of sub-cl. (i). It seems to me that there is another aspect of the matter which also is important, Section 4 (ii), which includes sub-cl. (i) is a legislative provision and obviously it could not be added to, or subtracted from, by mere executive notification such as the one dated 4th June, 1975, under the U. P. Land Revenue Act. In my view, therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel also is untenable and cannot be accepted. As stated earlier, in my view, the aforesaid notification in no way affected the ceiling proceedings or the applicability of the ceiling law to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel next tried to make a submission in respect of certain land which was said to have been wrongly included in the holding of the petitioner even though the same belonged to a third party. I did not allow this contention to be raised because it was not raised before the Appellate court as is clear from the certified copy of the said courts judgment, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the petition. 6. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.