ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued the notice) under Section 10 (2) of the Act, and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-8-1976, a true copy whereof, is Annexure I to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 11-4-1978, a certified copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the) petition. Now the petitioner, has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri S. A. Shah learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submission. 3. Two contentions have been pressed before me: The first one is that some land of Aziz Ilahi and Mobarak Khan was wrongly included in the holding of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decree which had been passed under Section 229-B of the Act, after 24-1-1971, whereby the land in question was declared to belong solely to the said two sons of the petitioner. It is further contended that the said decree has been accepted in the earlier ceiling proceedings and the same should be treated to be binding in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. He placed reliance on the decision of Mr. Justice Gopi Nath in Ramlal v. State (1978 All LJ 1197), and on the Division Bench pronouncement in Kedar Singh v. State, 1979 All WC 692 : (1980 All LJ 36). He also placed reliance on the Division Bench pronouncement in Keshan Kumar v. State of U. P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 3073 of 1977 decided on 21-9-1979). 4. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the groves were wrongly not treated to be so by the appellate court. So far as the second point is concerned, it is obvious that there is some misconception in the mind of the petitioner. The plots Nos. 36 and 37 were contended to be grove and they have been accepted by the appellate court to be grove and a relief to the extent of 2.92 acres of irrigated land was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the said finding. The plots Nos. 36 and 37 were contended to be grove and they have been accepted by the appellate court to be grove and a relief to the extent of 2.92 acres of irrigated land was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the said finding. So far as the first contention is concerned, I should like to say that the decree in question was an ex parte one and the sons filed suit after 24-1-1971 and the father did not contest the same. In a situation of this kind such decrees passed in the said manner between father and the sons, are likely to be' looked at with the greatest circumspection in the ceiling proceedings. Sri S. A. Shah has made a technical point that the authorities below were wrong in thinking that the first Explanation to Section 5 (6) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the case. His point is that it was not a case1 of seeking a declaration as a co-tenure-holder. He is right in his submission so far as that matter is concerned. However, as I said, the real nature of the decree is such that it was bound to be looked at with the greatest circumspection in the ceiling proceedings. There is another aspect of the matter. I am not exercising any appellate jurisdiction and I am not bound to interfere even if any illegality is pointed out and is established in the verdict, of the courts below. If I decide to interfere then such interference has also to be based on full equities of the case. It should be seen that in respect of the plot No. 153, the appellate court in its impugned judgment treated the same to be un-irrigated. It was pointed out on behalf of the State in the said court that the said plot had been treated as irrigated in the earlier ceiling proceedings. Lower appellate court, however, consistently with its view that Section 38-B of the Act allowed it to reopen such findings freshly went into the said controversy and treated the plot to be un-irrigated as against the earlier finding that it was irrigated. It should be seen that the total area of this plot was 27.59 acres and the petitioner was given a benefit of 9.19 acres of irrigated land on this ground. It should be seen that the total area of this plot was 27.59 acres and the petitioner was given a benefit of 9.19 acres of irrigated land on this ground. It should be seen that actually the loss, which according to the petitioner was caused to him by treating certain land of Aziz Ilahi and Mobarak Khan to be that of the petitioner. was less than the gain which he obtained in reference to plot No. 153 being treated as un-irrigated contrary to the earlier finding. An area of 4.90 acres of the said sons was wrongly included in the holding of the petitioner according to the latter. This area is much less than the area of the plot No. 153 as I have mentioned above. In this way, it will be seen that by applying the wrong interpretation of Section 38-B of the Act, the appellate court actually granted more benefit to the petitioner than he was entitled to on a correct interpretation of the law. In such circumstances, no interference is called for in this jurisdiction under Article 2,26 of the Constitution of India, which has to be distinguished from the appellate courts jurisdiction. 5. This petition accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.