JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. 1. THE basic controversy in this petition is whether service on the Karinda of the petitioner was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus land under Section 11 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter called the] 'Act'. 2. SECTION 9 of the Act contemplates a general notice to tenure-holder holding land in excess of ceiling area for submission of his statement in respect thereof. The manner of notice is by publication in the official Gazette. On failure of filing a statement by the tenure-holder, the Prescribed Authority is required to issue notice under SECTION 10 (2) of the Act after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary to show-cause why the plot or plots proposed in the notice may not be declared as surplus land. Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act require the Prescribed Authority to send a notice calling upon the tenure holder to show-cause alongwith a statement in C. L. H. Form-3. The manner of service of notice is given in Rule 9. It reads as under :- "9. Notice under Rule 8 may be served either : (a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served, or (b) by affixing it at the usual or last known place of abode of that person, or (c) by sending it by registered post addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode, and (d) in case of an incorporate company or society by sending it by registered post, addressed to the Secretary or principal functionary of the Company or Society or by delivering or affixing it at its principal office." On the finding that the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act on 24th of January, 1975, the appellate court upheld the ex parte order passed by the Prescribed Authority. It appears against the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner filed a writ petition which was admitted by this Court on 7-2-1975 and the following stay order was passed :- "Till further orders of the court, proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Act no. 1 of 1961 shall remain stayed." 3. It appears against the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner filed a writ petition which was admitted by this Court on 7-2-1975 and the following stay order was passed :- "Till further orders of the court, proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Act no. 1 of 1961 shall remain stayed." 3. AFTER the dismissal of this petition on 22-10-1975 fresh notices appear to have been issued fixing the case for 25th of March, 1976, on which date the following order was passed by the Prescribed Authority :- "There has been no response from the side of Khatedar. Hence, the relevant notice is confirmed under Section 11 (1) of the Act." 4. THE notice was issued on 12th of March, 1976 and the endorsement of the process server reads as under :- "Rao Madho Singh Aligarh me rahte hain. Tarikh ki Suchana Unke Karinda Virendra Pal ko de di." On 8th April, 1976 the petitioner applied for setting aside the ex parte order and sought permission to file an objection against the C. L. H. Form 3 which prayer was rejected on 24th May, 1976 and the Prescribed Authority passed a detailed order declaring the petitioner's land as indicated in C. L. H. Form-3 to be surplus. The facts are not disputed in the counter affidavit. It is admitted that the notice fixing 25th March, 1976 was served on the petitioner's Karinda. 5. RULE 9 quoted above does not contemplate service of notice on a Karinda or an agent except in clause (d) when it may be addressed to the Secretary or other principal functionary of the company or society. There is thus, no escape from the conclusion that no service as contemplated in law was affected on the petitioner. The order, therefore, by the Prescribed Authority declaring petitioner's land in absence of a proper service cannot be maintained. The appellate court took a view, even harsher, than that of the Prescribed Authority as according to him the notice issued under Section 10 fixing 24th January, 1975 against which the petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained a stay order was sufficient and he was not entitled to fresh notice of the date of hearing. The view taken by the Additional District Judge, is not in consonance either with the procedure or any principle. The view taken by the Additional District Judge, is not in consonance either with the procedure or any principle. Notice issued on 24th January, 1975 under Section 10 (2) of the Act was to file an objection against the proposed declaration of surplus land. The proceedings having revived after the dismissal of the writ petition, the Prescribed Authority could not pass an order without intimating the petitioner of the date of hearing. Infact, a notice was issued and notice issued in January, 1975 could not furnish ground to conclude that service was sufficient and the petitioner had reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Additional District Judge therefore, committed an error in coming to the conclusion that notice served under Section 10 (2) of the Act was sufficient and the petitioner was not entitled to get the ex parte order set aside or to pray for time for filing objection when he came to know of this proceeding. The orders, thus, cannot be sustained. 6. THE result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. THE orders passed by the Additional District Judge and the Prescribed Authority are quashed. THE Prescribed Authority is directed to permit the petitioner to file an objection and thereafter decide it in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.