JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 283 of 1975 Durga Prasad Singh, appellant v. State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent. The appeal was directed against the order dated 4-7-1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority on a restoration application moved by the petitioner and the restoration application was rejected. 2. IN this case the Additional Civil Judge has ordered as below :- "Appeal stands abated under Section 27 (1) of U. P. Ordinance 31 of 1975." The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the Additional Civil Judge did not read the memorandum of appeal correctly and he has been moved only by quotation of section under which the appeal purported to have been filed before him. He further contended that mere mention of wrong section was not at all fatal to the hearing of the appeal before the Addl. Civil Judge. He invited my attention to para. 2 of the grounds of appeal before the lower appellate court and also the lebel of appeal which is appeal under Section 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 against the order of S. D. O. Sadar and Prescribed Authority, Sadar dated 4-7-1975 passed in Case No. 1 of 1975 rejecting the restoration application of the appellant for the plots of village Kutauli etc. is as under :" 3. HE emphasised that the aforesaid portion in the memo of appeal would point out that the appeal was directed against the order rejecting the restoration application of the appellant-petitioner. 4. LEARNED counsel for the State opposite party contended that there was no sufficient cause for restoring the case and the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, hence the application for restoration was rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the Additional Civil Judge has patently erred in applying the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Ordinance, 1975 to the facts of the present case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the Additional Civil Judge has patently erred in applying the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Ordinance, 1975 to the facts of the present case. It is well known that mere mention of wrong section does not prove fatal to the claim of a party and it is bounden duty of a court to look into the substance of the allegations and to decide the claim of a party in accordance with law. 5. IN the present case I am satisfied that the appeal before the lower appellate court was against an order rejecting the restoration application moved before the Prescribed Authority. Hence the order passed by the Prescribed Authority would be covered by the provisions of Section 11 sub-clause (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 6. SECTION 13 of the aforesaid Act provides that any party aggrieved by an order under sub-section (2) of SECTION 11 or SECTION 12, may, within thirty days of the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate. In view of the aforesaid provision it is evident that the appeal lay to the District Judge and the appeal should have been decided on merits. The Additional Civil Judge committed a mistake apparent on the face of record in passing the impugned order dated 13-11-1975 and in treating the appeal before him an appeal under Section 14 sub-section (5) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 7. IN paragraph 16 of the writ petition it has been alleged that the Additional Civil Judge grossly erred in law in applying the provisions of Section 27 sub-clause (1) of the U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975. 8. ON behalf of opposite parties in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit the allegations made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition are denied, but at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the State could not point out anything substantial to satisfy me that in the circumstances of the present case the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Ordinance, 1975 may be applicable. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the State about the correctness of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is concerned, I think the petitioner has got a right to have the decision by the first appellate court which is a court of fact and law both. The appellate court has abated the appeal applying wrong provisions of law to the facts of this case, hence he has refused to decide the claim of the petitioner on merits and in this view of the matter the petitioner's contention against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority should be examined by the appellate court on merits first. Since I am of the view that the appeal before the opposite party No. 1 lay though it has been presented under wrong section i.e. Section 14 of the above mentioned Act, whereas it should be under Section 13 of the Act because the order passed under Sec. 11 sub-clause (2) of the Act is subject to an appeal under Sec. 13 of the Act, hence in my opinion the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate court is quashed and a direction is issued to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. The stay order is vacated and a direction is made that the money deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of stay order dated 17-12-1975 passed by this Court shall be returned to him. Appeal allowed.