JUDGMENT : R.C. SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. A notice u/s 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served on the father of the Petitioners, whose name was recorded in the revenue records as tenure-holder. He filed an objection. On the date fixed for framing of the issues the counsel informed the prescribed authority that the said tenure-holder had died hence fresh notices be issued in the names of his legal representatives. The prescribed authority passed a specific order for issue of notices to the heirs of the deceased tenure-holders. Inspite of the said order notices were not issued and at a later stage another order for issue of notice was passed. Irrespective of that order notices were not issued and subsequently when nobody turned up on behalf of the objector, the Prescribed Authority decided the case ex-parte and declared certain land to be surplus. On acquiring knowledge of the said ex-parte order the Petitioners applied for setting aside that ex-parte order. Their application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that once the objection was filed by the tenure-holder, the duty was of the heirs to pursue the objection. He further held that there was nothing to suggest that the Petitioners had no knowledge of the proceedings. The Petitioners thereafter went up in appeal. Their appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged that Rule 19(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was not applicable to the present case as the objection was already filed by the deceased tenure-holder hence the Prescribed Authority was not right in not issuing notices to the legal representative of the deceased tenure-holder before finally passing the ex-parte order. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has urged that Rule 19(4) of the Rules was fully applicable to the present case and the legal representatives of the deceased tenure-holder should have pursued the objection within 15 days from the date of the death of the deceased tenure-holder and as they did not pursue the objection hence there is no illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. 4. I have considered the arguments of the Learned Counsels for the parties. 4. I have considered the arguments of the Learned Counsels for the parties. Rule 19(4) of the Rules is reproduced below: Where a tenure-holder dies after the service of notice in C.L.H. Form 4, executor, administrator, or other legal representatives shall be allowed 15 days' time from the date of tenure-holder's death to file objections against the statement in C.L.H. Form 3. The objections of the executor, administrator, or other legal representatives of the deceased tenure-holder about the option of the land, which is to be retained as the ceiling area applicable to the deceased tenure-holder, shall be accepted only if all the legal representatives are agreed about the option. 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid rule it is evident that the aforesaid rule applies in a situation when the notice has been served on the tenure-holder but he dies before objection has been filed. In such situation legal representatives will have right to file objection within 15 days from the date of tenure-holder's death. In the present case not only the notice was served but the objection was also filed by the deceased tenure-holder hence Rule 19(4) of the Rules was not applicable. There is no other provision either under the Act or under the Rules to meet such a situation. 6. Now the question arises as to what procedure should have been followed by the Prescribed Authority after it came to know that tenure-holder was dead. Section 37 of the Act provides for applicability of the CPC for trial and disposal of the proceedings under the Act. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows: Any officer or authority holding an enquiry or hearing an objection under this Act, shall, in so far as it may be applicable, have all the powers and privileges of a civil court and follows the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the trial and disposal of suits relating to immovable property. 7. In view of the aforesaid provision the only course open to the Prescribed Authority was to follow the procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. The CPC provides for substitution of legal heirs at the instance of the Plaintiff where the Defendant dies. Admittedly, the position of a tenure-holder in proceedings under the Act is that of a Defendant as the State wants to take surplus land of the tenure-holder. The CPC provides for substitution of legal heirs at the instance of the Plaintiff where the Defendant dies. Admittedly, the position of a tenure-holder in proceedings under the Act is that of a Defendant as the State wants to take surplus land of the tenure-holder. In such a situation the Prescribed Authority should have issued notices to the legal heirs before finalizing the proceedings. Apart from it, in the present case the Prescribed Authority did pass orders for issue of notices to the legal heirs of the deceased tenure-holder. Once the order for issue of notices was passed, the Prescribed Authority should have proceeded with the matter only after having seen that the notices have been served on the legal representatives. If the Prescribed Authority proceeded without effecting service on the heirs, the order cannot be said to be valid. In fact the ex-parte order was passed under the assumption that notices must have been served when the order for issue of notices was passed. In fact it was a glaring mistake on the part of the Prescribed Authority as it did not verify whether actually the notices have been served or not. As the mistake was on the part of the Prescribed Authority, it was open to it to rectify the same. It has been held by this Court in Sant Singh vs. The District Judge, Ballia and Others, AIR 1978 All 559 , that if a mistake is committed by a court itself, it is always open to that court to rectify the same. Admittedly, in the present case inspite of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority for issue of notices, the notices were not issued to the legal representatives and they were not served with it. As the case was decided ex-parte without serving notices, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have recalled that order and to have proceeded with the case in accordance with law. 8. The Prescribed Authority committed another error of law in not setting aside the ex-parte order. The mistake was committed on the part of the Prescribed Authority by not issuing notices. However, if the legal representatives themselves applied for setting aside the ex-parte order and for opportunity of hearing, the Prescribed Authority should have recalled the ex-parte order and given an opportunity to the legal representatives to contest the proceedings. The mistake was committed on the part of the Prescribed Authority by not issuing notices. However, if the legal representatives themselves applied for setting aside the ex-parte order and for opportunity of hearing, the Prescribed Authority should have recalled the ex-parte order and given an opportunity to the legal representatives to contest the proceedings. The Petitioners alleged that they did not receive any notice. It is also not in dispute that notices were not issued to them inspite of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority. They also pleaded that they had no knowledge about the proceedings. There was nothing on record on behalf of the Respondents to controvert these allegations hence the Prescribed Authority should have set aside the ex-parte order and afforded an opportunity to the legal heirs of the deceased tenure-holder to contest the proceedings. 9. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners merely under the assumption that Rule 19(4) of the Rules was applicable to the present case and it was for the Petitioners to have filed an objection within 15 days of the deceased tenure-holder's death. I have already held above that rule 19(4) of the Rules was not at all applicable to such case as the objection had already been preferred by the deceased tenure-holder. As both the authorities below committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the application of the Petitioners applying the provisions of Rule 19(4) of the Rules which was wholly inapplicable to the present case, it is necessary that the case be sent back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law. 10. The result is that this writ petition is allowed and the judgments of the Prescribed Authority and that of the appellate authority are quashed The case is sent back to the Prescribed Authority who will decide the objection of the deceased tenure-holder on merit, after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. The stay order shall stand discharged.