ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 15-4-1977, in Ceiling Appeal Number 28 of 1977 Shri Bija v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. 2. The following facts give rise to the above noted writ petition: - The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He contested the notice and by the order dated 7-12-1974, 3 Bigha 12 Biswa and 16 Biswansi surplus area of the petitioner was declared. Ins appeal, the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority was set aside and the case remanded. During the pendency of the case before the prescribed authority, it appears that the petitioner was served with a second notice and he contested that notice. The prescribed authority by its order dated 8-4-1976 discharged the notice dated 30-1-1976. The State had gone in appeal against the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority dated 8-4-1976 and had lost in appeal as is evident from the order of the appellate authority dated 1-12-1976, (annexure 5 to the writ petition). On 27-2-1976 the prescribed authority had abated the earlier proceeding which had been revived on the order of remand passed by the appellate authority. It appears that the petitioner was called upon to attend the tribunal in connection with the earlier case No. 55 of 1974 under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act State v. Bija (Annex. 6 to the writ petition). The prescribed authority through its judgment dated 10-1-1977 has declared 2 Bigha 16 Biswa surplus area of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through the impugned judgment dated 15-4-1977. The petitioner has preferred the above noted writ petition against the judgment dated 15-4-1977 passed by the appellate authority. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in declaring the surplus area of the petitioner through their orders dated 10-1-77 and 15-4-77 and they have ignored the earlier decisions between the parties, namely the judgments passed by the prescribed authority on 8-4-76 and by the appellate authority on 1-12-76 whereby it was determined that the petitioner had no surplus area. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and according to him the ceiling authorities were not bound by the earlier decisions in view of the provisions of Section 38-B of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 5. I have examined the respective contentions of the parties and I have gone through the impugned judgments. I do not find that the ceiling authorities have at all referred to the judgments dated 8-4-76 and 1-12-76 whereby it was declared that the petitioner had no surplus area. Section 38-B of the Act reads thus: - "No finding or decision given before the commencement of this section in any proceeding or on any issue (including any order, decree or judgment) by any Court, tribunal or authority in respect of any matter governed by this Act, shall bar the retrial of such proceeding or issue under this Act, in accordance with the provisions of this Act as ami ended from time to time." 6. The above mentioned section has been inserted in the Act by the U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 with effect from October 10, 1975. In the present case the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 8-4-76 passed by the prescribed authority and confirmed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 1-12-76 and has contended that the ceiling authorities had no jurisdiction to declare the surplus area of the petitioner through their judgments dated 10-1-77 and 15-4-77. In my opinion the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have force. Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act does not strictly apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case the order dated 8-4-76 passed by the prescribed authority and confirmed by the appellate authority through the order dated 1-12-76 would stand in the way of the ceiling authorities to determine the surplus area of the petitioner. The ceiling authorities have conveniently ignored the order passed by them in pursuance of the second notice and they have committed an error in reviving the earlier proceeding and in declaring the surplus area of the petitioner. The ceiling authorities have conveniently ignored the order passed by them in pursuance of the second notice and they have committed an error in reviving the earlier proceeding and in declaring the surplus area of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the present case I think that the order passed by the prescribed authority on 10-1-77 and confirmed by the appellate authority through its order dated 15-4-77 which is under challenge before me deserves to be quashed. However, in view of the facts mentioned by me, it is desirable that the appellate authority should be asked to pass suitable final order in the case of the petitioner. 7. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned Order dated 15-4-77 passed by the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to pass suitable final order in respect of the proceeding revived after the final determination of the case started in pursuance of the second notice issued to the petitioner, Np. order is to costs.