JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C. J. 1. (FOR self and FOR R. M. Sahai, J.) :- The petitioner claimed to be the tenure holder of plots Nos. 169, 170 and 183, total area 32 big-has on the ground that by virtue of his adverse possession he acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. 2. IT appears that one Ram Chandra was recorded in the khatauni as sirdar of these plots. The Prescribed Authority issued notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, to Ram Chandra requiring him to file the requisite statement. Ram Chandra filed an objection which was heard, and by an order dated 16th January, 1975, the plots in dispute were determined as surplus area of Ram Chandra. In due course the determination of surplus area of Ram Chandra was published in U. P. Gazette dated 22nd March, 1975. Subsequently the petitioner, having come to know of these events, filed an objection under Section 14 (3) of the Ceiling Act in April, 1975. He prayed that the declaration of the plots in dispute as surplus area of Ram Chandra be set aside. 3. THE Governor of this State on 10th October, 1975, issued an Ordinance, named as U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, No. 31 of 1975. By this Ordinance subsections (3) to (7) of Section 14 of the Ceiling Act were repealed. Section 27 thereof provided that all pending objections under these provisions will abate. Thereafter, on 27th November, 1975, the Prescribed Authority dismissed the petitioner's objection on the ground that the objection had become infructuous and was not maintainable. 4. THE petitioner has, in the present writ petition, challenged the order dated 27th November, 1975. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted :- (1) A person claiming to be a tenure holder cannot, in law, be deprived of possession unless his rights are determined and unless the land in his possession is held to be surplus area. (2) Such a person cannot be dispossessed without payment of compensation at market value under the second proviso to Article 31 (1) of the Constitution. 5. THE scheme of the Ceiling Act is that under Section 5 of the Act no tenure holder is entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. 5. THE scheme of the Ceiling Act is that under Section 5 of the Act no tenure holder is entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Sub-section (16) of Section 3 of the Act defines surplus land to mean land held by a tenure-holder in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The term "tenure-holder'', has been defined by Section 3 (17) to mean a person who is the holder of a holding. "Holding" has been defined by Section 3 (9) to mean land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami of certain categories only mentioned in it. Thus the Act applies to lands held by bhumidhars and sirdars, as well as to the categories of asamis mentioned in Section 3 (9). 6. SECTION 9 onwards of the Act lay down the method of determining ceiling area and surplus land of tenure-holders. Section 9 (1) requires the Prescribed Authority to publish a general notice in the official gazette calling upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, to submit within thirty days a statement in respect of his holdings in the prescribed form. Under Section 10 (1) where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, the Prescribed Authority is to make such enquiry as he may consider necessary and prepare a statement containing the prescribed particulars. 7. UNDER sub-section (2) of Sec. 10 the Prescribed Authority is to serve upon every such tenure-holder a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-section (1), calling upon him to show cause within a specified period why the statement be not taken as correct, 8. SECTION 11 (1) requires the Prescribed Authority to determine surplus land of the tenure-holder, where there is no dispute. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 deals with objections of tenure-holders to the statements prepared under Section 10, and it requires the Prescribed Authority to decide them in accordance with Section 12. Under Section 12 the Prescribed Authority is to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing and of producing evidence to the parties and then to decide objections by a reasoned order. It is to determine the surplus land of the tenure -holder. 9. Under Section 12 the Prescribed Authority is to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing and of producing evidence to the parties and then to decide objections by a reasoned order. It is to determine the surplus land of the tenure -holder. 9. SECTION 13 provides for appeals against orders passed under Section 11 (2) or Section 12. 10. SECTION 14 (1) requires the Prescribed Authority to notify in the official gazette the surplus land determined under Sections 11, 12 or 13. Section 14 (2) provided that as from the beginning of the date of the notification all such surplus land shall, except as provided under sub-section (3), stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. Sub-section (3) provided for filing of objections before the Prescribed Authority by any person claiming interest as a tenure-holder or as a lessee in possession from a tenure-holder, indicating the extent of his interest. Sub-section (8) of Section 14 provided that the Collector may after publication of the notification under sub-section (1) take possession of the surplus land. Sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 14 were repealed by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. Section 14 of the Act was repealed and re-enacted by U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Second Amendment) Act, No. 56 of 1976. Subsection (1) of Section 14, as amended, provided that the Collector shall, at any time after- "(a) In case, where the order passed under sub-section (1) of Sec. 11 has become final, the date of its so becoming final, or (b) In case, where no appeal has been preferred under Section 13, the date of expiry of the period of limitation provided therefor, or (c) In case, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 13, the date of its decision, take possession of the surplus land determined under Section 11, Section 12 or Section 13......after evicting any person found in occupation of such land............" 11. UNDER the new Section 14 (3) the surplus land stood transferred to and vest in the State Government with effect from the date when the Collector took its possession. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 required the Prescribed Authority to notify in the official gazette every surplus land after the dates mentioned in sub-section (1). 12. UNDER the new Section 14 (3) the surplus land stood transferred to and vest in the State Government with effect from the date when the Collector took its possession. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 required the Prescribed Authority to notify in the official gazette every surplus land after the dates mentioned in sub-section (1). 12. THE main change was that the persons interested in the surplus land who were entitled to file objection under Section 14 (3) were deprived of this right by the repeal of that provision. The surplus land was to stand transferred to and vest in the State Government on the date when the Collector took possession. The Collector could take possession after the orders made under Sections 11, 12 or 13 had become final. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that the Act was applicable to tenure-holders. It did not cover merely tenure-holders who were recorded in the revenue papers. Every tenure-holder was entitled to the service of notice with a copy of the statement required to be served under Section 10 (2). Then alone he could file an objection either that the person mentioned in the statement as a tenure-holder or to dispute the declaration of any plot as surplus land as well as to give his choice of plots which may be declared surplus land. This right has not been touched, much less taken away, by the Amending Act of 1976. The Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 confined itself to the repeal of sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 14, under which, besides a tenure-holder, a lessee from him could file objections. 13. LEARNED counsel went on to stress that the right given to persons interested in the surplus land by Section 14 was de-hors and independent of the statutory rights of a tenure-holder under Sections 10, 11 and 12. Hence the Prescribed Authority or the Collector could not validly take possession from a tenure-holder without adjudication of his rights. 14. LEARNED Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State and the Prescribed Authority contended that the prayer in the writ petition for quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority abating the petitioner's objections under Section 14 (3) cannot be granted because those objections were expressly made to abate by legislation. 14. LEARNED Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State and the Prescribed Authority contended that the prayer in the writ petition for quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority abating the petitioner's objections under Section 14 (3) cannot be granted because those objections were expressly made to abate by legislation. He then submitted that the petitioner had the remedy of filing an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act and getting his rights as a tenure-holder adjudicated. He invited our attention to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Civil Judge, Bijnor, AIR 1970 All. 130 = 1969 AWR 285, in support of his submission. In respect of the second submission raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Advocate-General stated that in view Of the fact that the Ceiling Act as well as its Amending Acts of 1976 have been placed in the Ninth Schedule, all the provisions of Article 31 become inapplicable, by virtue of Article 31-B of the Constitution. 15. THE second submission of the learned Advocate-General is concluded in his favour by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya Govind v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915 wherein it has been held that in view of the placing of the Ceiling Act in the Ninth Schedule, the second proviso to Article 31 of the Constitution is not applicable. 16. IN view of the rival submissions on the first question, the controversy gets considerably narrowed. In the Full Bench case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 20 the Full Bench held :- "The position, therefore, is that under the definition of the term 'tenure- holder' and the scheme of the Act the holder of a holding has to be considered to be a tenure-holder, whether or not he is recorded as such in the revenue records and there is nothing in the provisions of the Act that precludes him from the right of filing an objection to the statement issued by the Prescribed Authority to another person". Section 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Act provide :- "(2) The Prescribed Authority shall, on application made within thirty days from the date of the order under subsection (1) by a tenure-holder aggrieved by such order passed in his absence and on sufficient cause being shown for his absence, set aside the order and allow such tenure-holder to file objection against the statement prepared under Section 10 and proceed to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 12. (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 13, the order of the Prescribed Authority shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any court of law". 17. DEALING with sub-section (2) the Full Bench in Paragraph 27 held that there appears to be no valid reason why the benefit of Section 11 (2) may not be available to every tenure-holder and why Section 11 (2) should be regarded as limited to those tenure-holders only who have been served with a notice under Section 10 (2). It went on to hold ;- "In my opinion, the words "a tenure-holder aggrieved by such order" embrace even those tenure-holders who have not been served with a notice under Section 10 (2) and their scope is in no manner curtailed by the words 'passed in his absence and on sufficient cause being shown for his absence'. A tenure-holder who has not been served with a notice and has also not been made a party would be treated as having been absent and the fact that he was not a party would itself sufficiently account for his absence. Section 11 (2). should not, to my mind, be interpreted as witholding its benefit from a person who has committed no default at all while extending it to a person who has committed a default but furnishes sufficient cause for it". 18. IT is thus evident that Section 11 (2) permits tenure-holders to file objections. Such tenure-holders may be those who have been served with a notice and the statement under Section 10(2). It also includes tenure-holders who have not been given or served with any such notice or statement. 18. IT is thus evident that Section 11 (2) permits tenure-holders to file objections. Such tenure-holders may be those who have been served with a notice and the statement under Section 10(2). It also includes tenure-holders who have not been given or served with any such notice or statement. The construction put by the Full Bench on Section 11 (2) embraces persons who claim to be tenure-holders and who having come to know of the declaration of their land as surplus land of some other person, wish to challenge that declaration or notification thereof in the gazette under Section 14. They are all entitled to file an objection under Section 11 (2) and get an adjudication thereon as required by Section 12. Sections 9 to 13 are in their operation and effect independent of Section 14 (3) to (7). Even though subsections (3) to (7) of Section 14 were on the statute book, yet the Full Bench took the view that a tenure-holder would be entitled to file an objection under Section 11 (2) even though he had not been given any notice. The legislature would be presumed to have this decision in its mind when it repealed sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 14 but did not touch the provisions of Sections 9 to 13, by excluding from their purview, persons who claimed to be tenure-holders but who had not been served with a notice or statement under Section 10 (2). In substance the repeal of Sections 14 (3) to (7) takes away the right of a lessee from a tenure-holder, to be heard. 19. SECTION 14 authorises the Collector to take possession of the lands which have been declared surplus. The surplus land vests in Government from the date the Collector takes possession. In view of the Scheme as discussed above, a tenure-holder in possession cannot be evicted till his objection under Section 11 (2) is pending adjudication. Till then the declaration of surplus land can not become final as against him. 20. IN the present case the petitioner can have no grievance against the abatement of objections under Section 14. He has not yet filed objections under Section 11 (2). He is hence not entitled to any relief. The writ petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs Petition dismissed.