JUDGMENT : K.M. Dayal, J. The present petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (Act of 1960). The Petitioner was issued a notice u/s 10(2) of the Act aforesaid and the Prescribed Authority declared 9 bighas 5 biswas and 6 biswansis of land as surplus on 6th January, 1975. 2. The Petitioner and the State Government both filed appeals against the Judgment of the Prescribed Authority. The 3rd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, by his order dated 20th September, 1975 partly allowed the appeal of the Petitioner and dismissed that of the State Government. The case was sent down to the Prescribed Authority for re-calculating the surplus area in accordance with the orders passed by the appellate court. A writ petition was filed before this Court but the same was dismissed summarily. 3. Subsequently the Prescribed Authority issued another notice to the Petitioner u/s 10(2) of the Act for re-determination of the surplus area. This notice was issued to the Petitioner under the provisions of sub Section (3) of Section 31 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. XX of 1976). Under the new notice the Prescribed Authority purported to claim 17 bighas of land of the Petitioner as surplus. This notice included the entire original land of the Petitioner. Objections were filed by the Petitioner. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 4th June 1976 declared 17 bighas 10 biswas 13 biswansis of land as surplus. 4. Again the Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was numbered as Ceiling Appeal No. 392 of 1976; that appeal was decided along with another appeal, by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 13th January 1977. The appellate court allowed the appeal and held that the tenure holder had only 5 biswas and 6 biswansis of surplus land and notice in respect of the remaining was discharged and the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was modified. 5. It so appears that inspite of the second notice issued by the Prescribed Authority, it took action on the basis of the previous appellate order dated 20-9-1975 for recalculating the surplus area. The Petitioner was not issued any notice for re-calculation but calculation was made on 5th June 1976. 6. 5. It so appears that inspite of the second notice issued by the Prescribed Authority, it took action on the basis of the previous appellate order dated 20-9-1975 for recalculating the surplus area. The Petitioner was not issued any notice for re-calculation but calculation was made on 5th June 1976. 6. After decision of the appeal the State Government wanted to enforce the earlier determination according to the order of 3rd Additional District Judge dated 20th September, 1975 and order of Prescribed Authority dated 5-6-1976 recalculating the surplus area in accordance with the remand order. 7. The Petitioner filed objections which are filed with the present petition as Annexure 3. These objections have been rejected by the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority dated 28-12-1977. The Prescribed Authority held that it was merely a case for recalculation and, therefore, it was not necessary to hear the tenure-holder again. It further held that as the writ petition filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 20-9-1975 had been dismissed by the High Court, the matter became final and the order became enforceable. 8. The Prescribed Authority refused to follow the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the writ petition against the earlier judgment having been dismissed, the facts of the aforesaid case could not be made applicable to the present case. 9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the subsequent and final determination of surplus area on 13-1-1977 was binding on the parties and was the only determination which could be enforced. The learned Counsel argued that any earlier determination was impliedly abated and could not be enforced after re-determination was made under Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of U.P. Act No. XX of 1976. 10. We find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel. Sub-section (3) of section 31 is reproduced below for ready reference: Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the fifth day of October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the particular Act) may, at any time within the period of two years from the said date, re-determine the surplus land in accordance with the particular Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land. 11. It is clear that in the first proceedings, the appeal was decided on 20th September, 1975 i.e. prior to 10th October, 1975. There can be no doubt the Prescribed Authority was entitled to issue a notice under the aforesaid sub-section to re-determine the land. We have to see what is the effect of the issue of the subsequent notice. 12. The important words in the sub-section are: "notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land." 13. 'Notwithstanding' is the word which gives a clue to the fate of the earlier proceedings; that word has been used in several enactments. There is no birth of cases on the meaning of the word and it has been held that it means irrespective of or ignoring the other provisions. The matter came up for consideration in the case of The South India Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. The Secretary, Board of Revenue Trivandrum and Another, AIR 1964 SC 207 . Their Lordships held: While interpreting the words 'notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, in Article 278 of the Constitution of India, meant equivalent to saying that inspite of other Articles of the Constitution or the other Articles shall not be an impediment to the operation of Article 278. 14. It meant that the subsequent determination under Clause (3) of Section 31 of the Act XX of 1976 meant that the determination of surplus area prior to 10th October, 1975 was to be ignored where the area was to be re-determined under this provision. The practical effect of ignoring the earlier determination is only one that it would cease to have any existence in the eye of law. Consequently the provisions of re-determination would, alone be binding and the earlier determination becomes non-ens in law. Such an order could not be enforced. An almost similar matter came up for determination before Single Judge of the court in Jwala Prasad Singh v. District Judge 1979 ALR 137. 15. We have already referred above another Single Judge decision of our court which was cited before the Prescribed Authority and which is noted by it. Thus, we are in agreement with both the decisions mentioned above. 16. 15. We have already referred above another Single Judge decision of our court which was cited before the Prescribed Authority and which is noted by it. Thus, we are in agreement with both the decisions mentioned above. 16. After a careful consideration of the provisions and scheme of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act Amendment Act 1976, we hold that as soon as another notice u/s 10(2) was issued by the Prescribed Authority purporting to act under Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the aforesaid Act, the declaration of surplus land by the Prescribed Authority made prior to 10th of October, 1975 stood annulled inspite of the fact whether an appeal was filed against the same and was pending or not. In such an eventuality the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority cannot be enforced and the only enforceable order is the final order passed in pursuance of the notice issued for re-determination under the aforesaid Sub-section (3) of Section 31. 17. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 31st December, 1977 in case No. 70 of 1974 and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-6-1976 passed in pursuance of the remand order dated 20th September, 1975 are quashed. The Respondents are restrained from enforcing the orders aforesaid. Any proceedings taken in pursuance of the aforesaid order are also quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to restore the surplus land, to the Petitioner, if already taken in accordance with the order dated 5-6-1976 and 20-9-1975. It can only enforce the final order dated 13-1-1977 passed in Appeal No. 392 of 1976 Balwant v. State. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.