ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -Both these 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: 3. Shri Diwakar Singh, who is petitioner in both the connected petitions, 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 31-3-1977, a true copy whereof is Annex. 1 in both the petitions. Thereafter two appeals were filed one by the petitioner, who was the tenure-holder and the other by the State. Unfortunately both the appeals were not heard together otherwise much of the difficulty which has been faced by the petitioner would have been avoided. The States appeal was heard first and it was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 12-8-1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to writ petition No. 10247 of 1978. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. Subsequently, the tenure-holders appeal came up for decision and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 20-1-1979, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to writ petition No. 2951 of 1979. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. The tenure-holders appeal was dismissed on the ground that the States appeal had already been decided and the same had become final. It has also been stated in the appellate courts judgment that it was brought to its notice that a writ petition was pending in this Court against the judgment of the appellate court allowing the said appeal of the State. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10247 of 1978 is directed against the appellate courts judgment dated 12-8- 1978 whereby the States appeal was allowed. The other petition namely Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2951 of 1979 is directed against the judgment of the appellate court dated 19-1-1979, whereby the tenure-holders appeal was dismissed on the grounds mentioned above. 5. In support of both the writ petitions, I have heard Sri S. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 6. So far as writ petition No. 2951 of 1979 is concerned, in my opinion, it deserves to be allowed. 5. In support of both the writ petitions, I have heard Sri S. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 6. So far as writ petition No. 2951 of 1979 is concerned, in my opinion, it deserves to be allowed. The appellate court was wrong in thinking that as the appeal of the State had been decided, therefore, the tenure-holders appeal had become in-fructuous. It should be seen that while the State was contending that some further land should be declared as surplus compared to the area which had been declared as surplus by the Prescribed Authority, the tenure-holders contention was that lesser area should have been declared as surplus or no area at all should have been declared as surplus compared to what had been declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that for no fault of the petitioner the two appeals were heard separately, his rights which he was seeking to ventilate in his appeal could not be obliterated on the ground that the State appeal had been decided earlier. Despite the decision in the States appeal, the tenure-holder was entitled to have a decision in his appeal in respect of the contentions which he was raising. 7. So far as the other writ petition is concerned, it was contended that the appellate court was wrong in thinking that benefit of .09 acre was given twice over. However, it has not been shown as to how and in what manner the said statement is incorrect. C- L. H. Form 3 or its copy has not been produced before me and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. However, if there be any obvious error such as is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then the petitioner can move the appellate court by way of a review petition for rectification of that mistake and I do not want to say anything in this matter. However, no interference is made in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, I allow Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2951 of 1979 and quash the judgment of the appellate court dated 19-1-1979. The appellate court is directed to hear the appeal of the tenure-holder and decide the same on its merit. 9. However, no interference is made in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, I allow Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2951 of 1979 and quash the judgment of the appellate court dated 19-1-1979. The appellate court is directed to hear the appeal of the tenure-holder and decide the same on its merit. 9. So far as the other writ petition is concerned, subject to the observations made above, this petition is dismissed. 10. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.