ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - On facts apparent from the judgment and affidavit filed by parties it is obvious that ceiling area of the petitioner has been reduced even below the area he is entitled to hold under law. The question however is whether petitioner can be denied relief because he did not seek his redress before appropriate authority or because he filed a time barred appeal. 2. The circumstances in which this controversy arose were that petitioner filed an objection, in response to notice under Section 10 (2), which was rejected. Against this order petitioner filed appeal which was decided on 12th February, 1976, and although some relief was granted but petitioner was not satisfied and he filed writ petition in this Court which was allowed and appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh and determine whether petitioner's land was irrigated or unirrigated in accordance with Section 4 (A) of the Act. In pursuance of the direction issued by this court the District Judge decided the appeal on 29th November, 1978 and the operative portion of the order reads as under - "The appeal is partly allowed. The area of surplus land stands reduced to 16.655 acres in terms of the irrigated area." After the order was passed the petitioner filed an application under Section 13A for review before the Prescribed Authority and claimed that a mistake has crept in the order passed by District Judge and as a result of declaration of 16.655 acres as surplus his ceiling area has been reduced from what he is entitled to hold under law. This application was rejected as the mistake if any could be removed by appellate authority only. The petitioner even then did not approach appellate authority but filed a belated appeal along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. From the copy of application, filed as annexure to this writ petition, the stand of petitioner was that the date fixed before Prescribed Authority was 29th April but the petitioner was informed that the prescribed authority is on leave and he shall be intimated of the next date. This date was never intimated and petitioner came to know of it when he went to make inquiry on 4-6-1979 that order has already been passed. It is not clear in what circumstances appellate authority examined petitioners son Dayanand. This date was never intimated and petitioner came to know of it when he went to make inquiry on 4-6-1979 that order has already been passed. It is not clear in what circumstances appellate authority examined petitioners son Dayanand. who incidentally has filed affidavit in support of petition even in this court, and held that as it was admitted to him that he was present on 29-4-1979 before Prescribed Authority and the order was passed in his presence the petitioner therefore was not entitled to claim any benefit for condonation of delay. 3. It has been urged that appellate authority committed an error in dismissing the application on finding that Daya nand was present. The learned counsel criticised the procedure adopted by appellate authority of examining Dayanand. It is not necessary to decide all this as even assuming that Prescribed Authority was justified in dismissing application under Section 13A as not maintainable and appellate authority committed an error in dismissing the appeal as barred by time it cannot be disputed that if as a result of appellate order dated 29-11-1978 giving rise to application under Section 13A of the ceiling area of petitioner was reduced even below 18.038 acres the petitioner is certainly entitled to relief irrespective all the mistake committed by him in choosing wrong forum. 4. It has been seen above that 16.655 acres was declared as surplus by appellate authority. In para 6 of the counter affidavit the total area, in terms of irrigated land, held by petitioner is described to be 34.431 acres. If 16.655 acres is added to 18.038 acres the total comes to 34.693 acres that in .262 acre more than the petitioner held. The declaration of surplus area therefore was manifestly erroneous. The appellate authority could not declare more than 16.392 acres as surplus area. The order dated 29-11-1978 therefore cannot be maintained. 5. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 29-11-1978 is quashed to the extent observed above. It was not necessary to quash order dated 28-4-1979 and 18-8-1979 as after quashing of order dated 29-11-1978 they have no efficacy but in order to avoid any technical defect they are also quashed. In case petitioner is still in possession he shall have right to retain land which he desires. It was not necessary to quash order dated 28-4-1979 and 18-8-1979 as after quashing of order dated 29-11-1978 they have no efficacy but in order to avoid any technical defect they are also quashed. In case petitioner is still in possession he shall have right to retain land which he desires. If State has taken possession the prescribed authority shall make effort to restore land of petitioner as far as it is possible. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs.