ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, 2. The facts, in brief, are these; The petitioner was earlier issued notice under Section 10 (2) and she filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 25th Jan. 1974. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was decided on 13th March, 1975. It was partly allowed. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 50827 of 1975 and the same was allowed by K. N. Seth, J. on 10th Jan. 1978. In the meanwhile the Prescribed Authority issued a second notice under the amended provisions of the Act and the same was served on the petitioner on 30th Oct. 1975. By the second notice a larger area of land was proposed to be declared as surplus. The petitioner again filed objections, and, inter alia, one of her objections was that there was no occasion for issuing the second notice and it had been illegally issued to her. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the said contention and decided the objections by his order dated 30th Oct. 1976. A true copy of the said order is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority rejected the contention of the petitioner in respect of the validity of the second notice on the ground that Section 38-B of the Act enabled him to reopen and decide all the contentions without any hindrance on the basis of the earlier order passed under the earlier ceiling proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was partly allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 26th Mar. 1977, a true copy whereof is annexure 2 to the petition. Now, the petitioner has come up in the instant petition. 3. The petitioner has stated in para 10 of the petition as follows :- "That the petitioner had challenged the validity of the 2nd notice before District Judge in ground No. 19 and pressed that point at the time of argument, but he has not decided the point and not said even a word about it." 4. In support of the petition I have heard Shri B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of the petition I have heard Shri B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In this petition along with many other petitions I referred two questions to the larger Bench for being answered and the Division Bench has answered the said two questions on Sept. 21, 1979. In view of the answers returned by the Division Bench, it stands now settled that the second notice under the amended provision could be issued only with reference to a situation where redetermination of surplus land became necessary as a result of the amendments introduced by the amending Act. In the subsequent ceiling proceedings the ceiling authority would be bound by all, the findings recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings save where in view of the amendments effected by the amending Act the ceiling authority became entitled to reopen and retry an earlier finding in consequence of the subsequent amendments introduced by the amending Act. In view of this law, which has now been laid down, the judgment of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court passed in the subsequent ceiling proceedings will have to be quashed, because the said authorities proceeded on the basis that under Section 38-B they were entitled to ignore the earlier findings recorded by the ceiling authorities in the earlier ceiling proceedings. This interpretation of Section 38-B has not been upheld by the Division Bench answering the two questions which were referred to it by me in this petition and other connected petitions. 5. Accordingly, I allow this petition and quash the order of the prescribed Authority dated 30th October, 1976 (annexure 1) and the judgment of the appellate court dated 26th March, 1977. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that he will re-examine the question of the validity of the notice under Section 10 (2) which was issued to the petitioner in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. The validity of the notice can only be upheld if it be shown that certain findings recorded in the earlier proceedings needed to be reopened and retried in view of the amendments effected by the amending Act whereafter the subsequent notice under Section 10 (2) was issued to the petitioner. The validity of the notice can only be upheld if it be shown that certain findings recorded in the earlier proceedings needed to be reopened and retried in view of the amendments effected by the amending Act whereafter the subsequent notice under Section 10 (2) was issued to the petitioner. I should like to draw the attention of the Prescribed Authority to the Division Bench pronouncement reported in Sukhbir Singh v. Prescribed Authority, 1979 (5) All LR 107 and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench it is clear that the appellate courts judgment dated 13th March, 1975 in the earlier ceiling, proceedings did not stand abated-. Thereafter Justice K. N. Seth allowed the Writ Petition No. 50828 of 1975 which was directed against the orders passed in the earlier ceiling proceedings and in view of the said judgment of Justice Seth it was held that under the old law, as it stood before the amendment, the petitioners land was not liable to be declared as surplus. In other words, there was no surplus land in her hands. Despite the said final verdict given by this court in the writ petition, it will still be open to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus but only to the extent that the same is warranted on the basis of the amendments effected in the ceiling law by the amending Act. If the amendments effected by the amending Act do corded culminating in the verdict of this Court in the said writ petition, then obviously there will be no occasion to redetermine the surplus land in the subsequent proceedings. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.