ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -These four petitions arise out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. There are two brothers Ram Prasad Dubey and Rajdeo Dubey. They are real brothers and co-tenure-holders. The notices under Section 10 (2) of the Act were separately issued to each of them and they filed objections. The Prescribed Authority, by his two separate orders both dated 31-12-1977, decided the objections. A true copy of the order passed in the case of Ram Prasad Dubey is Annexure 3 to his petition (No. 7673 of 1978); a true copy of the order passed in the case of Rajdeo Dubey is Annexure 3 to his petition (No. 7672 of 1978). Thereafter, four appeals were filed. Ceiling Appeal No. 16 of 1978 was filed by the said Rajdeo Dubey and it was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21-7-1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure 4 to his aforesaid petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record; Ceiling Appeal No. 17 of 1978 was filed by the said Ram Prasad Dubey; Ceiling Appeal No. 18 of 1978 was filed by Hanumanji, and Ceiling Appeal No. 19 of 1979 was filed by Bholanath and 10 others, who claimed that their lands were wrongly included in the holdings of the said tenure holders. Ceiling Appeals Nos. 17 and 18 of 1978 were decided by the appellate court by one common judgment dated 21-7-1978, a true copy and a certified copy whereof are on the record in the aforesaid petition of Ram Prasad Dubey (Writ Petition No. 7673 of 1978); Ceiling Appeal No. 19 of 1978 Bhola Nath and 10 others v. U. P. State and others was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21-7-1978 a true copy and a certified copy whereof are on the record and marked Annexure 3 to the writ petition of Bhola Nath and others (Writ Petition No. 9321 of 1978). 3. Now the petitioners have come up in these four separate writ petitions before this Court and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. As common questions arise in these four writ petitions. 3. Now the petitioners have come up in these four separate writ petitions before this Court and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. As common questions arise in these four writ petitions. Therefore, they are being disposed of by one common judgment. 4. The two contentions involved in these four writ petitions are as follows:- 1. Land held by the deities - Sri Thakur Ji and Hanuman Ji should not have been included in the holding of the two tenure-holders, Ram Prasad and Raj Deo Dubey: 2. Land, which was held by Bholanath and others, should not have been included in the holding of the said two tenure-holders. 5. So far as the first contention is concerned, in my view, interference is called for in the land which was held by Sri Thakur Ji. Sri R. N. Singh has rightly pointed out that in respect of the land held by Sri Thakur Ji, there can be no question of any effort on the part of the tenure-holders to seek to circumvent the ceiling law. He says that it is borne out from the record that the land stood in the name of Sri Thakur Ji even since prior to the date of vesting. The learned counsel is also right in pointing out that the authorities before were too much engrossed with the requirements of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act and he has drawn my attention to the provision contained in Section 5 (3) (e) of the Act which lays down that in the case of any other tenure-holder 7.30 hectares of irrigated land shall be the ceiling area. His contention is that even if a case is not covered by the provision of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act, it does not mean that the case cannot be covered by Section 5 (3) (e) of the Act. In my view, this contention is correct. 6. So far as the case of Hanuman Ji is concerned, in my view, it was open to the appellate court to have pointed out that despite the deed dated 30-6-1959 no mutation was effected in favour of Hanuman Ji and the document was not given effect to. 7. In my view, this contention is correct. 6. So far as the case of Hanuman Ji is concerned, in my view, it was open to the appellate court to have pointed out that despite the deed dated 30-6-1959 no mutation was effected in favour of Hanuman Ji and the document was not given effect to. 7. So far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel is concerned, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench pronouncement in Yadunath Singh v. State (1979 All WC 187) and his point of view is that as the aforesaid Division Bench decision was not available to the authorities below at the time when they decided the controversy their orders suffer from errors of law. This is correct. 8. Accordingly, I allow all the four petitions and quash the aforesaid appellate courts judgments in the manner that so far as the land which stood recorded in the name of Sri Thakur Ji on 8-9-1973, is concerned, the same shall be excluded from the holding of the aforesaid tenure-holders and further so far as the transfer deeds and decrees executed before 24-1-1971 are concerned, the appellate courts aforesaid judgments shall stand quashed. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that so far as such transfer deeds and decrees are concerned (executed or passed before 24-1-1971), the Prescribed Authority shall allow both the sides to lead additional evidence and then deal with such documents and decree (executed and passed before 24-1-1971) in the manner as laid down by the Division Bench in Yadunath Singhs case (supra). Thereafter the Prescribed Authority shall redetermine the ceiling area and the surplus land of the two tenure-holders. It is made clear that no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised before the Prescribed Authority hereafter or before the appellate court in case fresh appeals are filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority. However, it would be open to the tenure-holders to express their choice in case there be any surplus land in their hands. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.