JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. The petitioner, a transferee under a registered sale deed dated 3. 8. 1959 from one Amar Nath, filed an objection on 13. 6. 1975 against notice issued under section 4, of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1972, for eviction as the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the land which was declared surplus of Amarnath under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as far back as 1962. The objection was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority as the petitioner did not file any objection within time, after publication of notification u/s 14(3) of the Act. The order was affirmed in appeal. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act but neither the Prescribed Authority nor the appellate court passed any order on it. The allegations have not been contravented. As regards the objections to notice u/s 4 of the U, P. Public Premises Act, it was rightly held by the appellate court that mere mention of a wrong section or provision of the Act did not invalidate the proceeding so long it was issued by the Authority who had the jurisdiction to take proceedings for eviction. The factum of transfer before the prescribed date (20. 8. 59) and consequent mutation in the revenue records have not been found to be incorrect by the appellate authority or the Prescribed Authority nor is there any finding that the saledeed suffered from any infirmity. But action u/s 14 (3) for taking possession is defended as the petitioner did not file any objection u/s 14 (3). In the counteraffidavit the respondents have curiously alleged that the saledeed in favour of petitioner being after prescribed date, the prescribed authority rightly declared it to be surplus of Amarnath. This is contrary to the findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority as they have, in no unmistaken terms, found that the saledeed is dated 3. 8. 1959 and petitioner's name was mutated. The question is whether petitioner can succesefully resist respondents action for eviction. For this it is necessary to examine the scheme of the Act, resulting in issuance of notification u/s 14 and consequent power of the Collector to dispossess a tenureholder, if necessary even by force. 8. 1959 and petitioner's name was mutated. The question is whether petitioner can succesefully resist respondents action for eviction. For this it is necessary to examine the scheme of the Act, resulting in issuance of notification u/s 14 and consequent power of the Collector to dispossess a tenureholder, if necessary even by force. Section 5 of the Ceiling Act envisages determination of ceiling area of a tenureholder. Tenureholder has been defined under the Act as a holder of a holding and holding has been defined as land held by a Bhumidhar, sirdar or assami of Gaon Sabha. Sections 9 to 12 lay down the procedure of determination of ceiling area. Section 9 calls upon a tenureholder in pursuance of a general notice to submit a statement if he held land in excess of ceiling area. It does not cast obligation on every tenureholder to file statement. It is confined to tenureholders having land in excess of ceiling area. The prescribed authority has been empowered to issue notice u/s 10 (2) if he is satisfied after making inquiry that any land held by a tenureholder is in excess of the ceiling area. The word 'inquiry' is significant. A notice issued to a person who transferred the land in dispute much before the prescribed date and ceased to be a holder of holding area cannot be considered to be a notice issued after inquiry. The use of the words as 'he considers necessary' do not make the inquiry merely mechanical. As a matter of fact action u/s 10 (1) set the machinary in motion for determination of ceiling area. Sections 11,12 and 13 deal with determination of objections and appeal. But all these sections apply to a person who is a tenureholder and holds land in excess of ceiling area. The question then is was Amarnath a tenureholder and if not then what is the effect of declaration of petitioners holding as surplus of Amarnath. Admittedly Amarnath was a Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. The interest of a Bhumidhar is transferable. He sold the land to the petitioner on 3. 8. 1959. The effect of the transfer was that Amarnath was left with no interest or title and he ceased to be a tenureholder. As the Legislature did not touch the transfers prior to 20. 8. The interest of a Bhumidhar is transferable. He sold the land to the petitioner on 3. 8. 1959. The effect of the transfer was that Amarnath was left with no interest or title and he ceased to be a tenureholder. As the Legislature did not touch the transfers prior to 20. 8. 59, it was not in the domain of Prescribed Authority to treat this land as the land of Amarnath. It is not denied that the petitioner was not served with any notice. The proceedings culminating in declaration of surplus land treating the land in dispute to be holding of a person who was not its tenureholder were void and nonset. It was contrary to the provisions of law and procedure. Land of 'A' was declared to be surplus of 'B' behind his back, without any notice to him. Such a declaration was not binding on the petitioner nor it had any sanctity or efficacy in law. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the petitioner had a remedy u/s 14 (3) of the Act and he having not filed any objection within time was debarred from raising this plea. He maintained that a notification having been issued u/s 14 (1) (as it stood before the section was amended in 1976) the land in dispute vested in the State and the petitioner who claims to be a tenureholder cannot now resist eviction from the land in dispute. The argument cannot be accepted. What vests in the State after notification in the official gazette is the surplus land. The issuance of notification is dependent on adjudication of the objection and order passed u/s 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. As the orders declaring surplus land are itself nonest, inoperative and invalid of the Act, mere issuing of notification in the official gazette cannot breath any life in it. It cannot be validated nor the tenureholder to whom the land belonged be divested of his title. Admittedly the petitioner is in possession. A person in possession has the right to defend against the whole world except a person with a better title. If the adjudication and declaration of surplus land is contrary to the provisions of law and procedure and consequently inoperative a tenureholder has a better right and cannot be evicted. Admittedly the petitioner is in possession. A person in possession has the right to defend against the whole world except a person with a better title. If the adjudication and declaration of surplus land is contrary to the provisions of law and procedure and consequently inoperative a tenureholder has a better right and cannot be evicted. The action of taking possession in pursuance of an order declaring surplus land is an executive action. The Act, no doubt, authorises the Collector to take possession, and use even force if necessary. But this has to be read in the context it has been used. He is authorised to take possession over land which has been validly declared to be surplus land. Where the basis of his action is challenged he must determine the source and the extent of his power. In M/s. Frame ExServicemen Co opTenant Farming Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others (1) the Collector took proceedings for evictions against certain losses after determination of their leasts. Under the Act he was empowered to do so. His action was challanged as it was not clear under which provision fresh leases were granted to others. It was held by the Supreme Court: "Hence at the very threshold, the power of the Collector to proceed under the Act is challanged. It is true that the Act does not give power to the Collector to adjudicate on questions of right and title where these properly and really arise. Nevertheless, the Collector when proceeding to take steps under the Act must determine the source and extent of his power and jurisdiction where these are questioned, so as to decide whether the Act relied upon by a party before him could be applied at all." The result is that this petition is allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to its cost. It shall be however, open to the prescribed authority to take proceedings in respect of land in dispute after proper inquiry and service of statement in G.I.H. Form 3 on the petitioner.