ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - Notices issued, under sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1976 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976), on 18th July 78 for redetermination of surplus land were challenged as without jurisdiction because they were issued after two years from 10th October, 1975 the date on which Ordinance No. 31 was issued empowering prescribed authority to DY/GY/C33/81/MBR redetermine surplus land within two years of the afore aid Act in cases where determination had been done prior to it. Both the appellate and prescribed authority repelled the contention and held that petitioner's case was covered by sub-section (2) as the appeal against the order of prescribed authority determining surplus area of petitioner, under the principal Act, was abated. The appellate authority held that as appeal was abated, sub-section (3) of Section 31 was not attracted as it applied only to those cases where surplus area was determined prior to 10th October, 1975 or the appeal was filed prior to this date which could not abate under sub-section (2). He further held that the proceedings were in fact for determination and not for redetermination under the newly added proviso to Section 9 by U. P. Act 20 of 1976. 2. Before considering the legal question the circumstances in which the controversy arose may be noticed. On 9th December. 1974 the prescribed authority decided the objection of petitioner filed under Section 10 (2) and determined the surplus area. Against this order petitioner filed appeal and during pendency of appeal U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Amendment Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 was issued. Sub-section (2) of Section 27, provided for abatement of appeal preferred on or after 17th January, 1975 and pending immediately before commencement of the, Ordinance. This Ordinance was replaced by Act 20 of 1976. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 31 read as under: "2. Sub-section (2) of Section 27, provided for abatement of appeal preferred on or after 17th January, 1975 and pending immediately before commencement of the, Ordinance. This Ordinance was replaced by Act 20 of 1976. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 31 read as under: "2. where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure holder has been made under the principal Act before January 17, 1975 and the prescribed authority is required to redetermine the surplus land under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, then notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, every appeal under Section 13 of the principal Act or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order. and pending immediately before the tenth day of October 1975 shall be deemed to have abated on the said date. 3. Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the tenth day of October, 1975, the prescribed authority (as defined in the principal Act) may at any time within a period of two years from the said date, redetermine the surplus in accordance with the principal 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." 3. Both the sub-sections deal with two different situations. The former deals with abatement of appeals and clears the way for exercise of jurisdiction: in the latter, by abatement the finality of decisions by Prescribed Authority is taken away if Prescribed Authority is of opinion that redetermination of surplus area is required. By sub-section (3) the Prescribed Authority is empowered to exercise such jurisdiction within two years from 10th of October. 1975 that is the day on 'which Ordinance 2031 was issued. Subsection (2) by itself was not sufficient (for initiation of any proceedings for redetermination of surplus area. The appellate authority therefore committed an error in recording the finding that lit was sub-section (2) of Section 31 which applied to the petitioner and not ;sub-section (3). 4. His finding on applicability of proviso to Section 9 also is not well founded. Subsection (2) by itself was not sufficient (for initiation of any proceedings for redetermination of surplus area. The appellate authority therefore committed an error in recording the finding that lit was sub-section (2) of Section 31 which applied to the petitioner and not ;sub-section (3). 4. His finding on applicability of proviso to Section 9 also is not well founded. It was added by Act 20 of 1976 and runs as under : "Provided that at any time after October 10, 1975, the Prescribed Authority, may by notice, call upon any tenure-holder holding, land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date, to submit to him within thirty days from the date of service of such notice a statement referred to in sub-section (i) or any information pertaining thereto." 5. It only empowers prescribed authority to issue notice to tenure-holder. This has to be read along with Section, 31 of Act 20 of 1976. That section confers jurisdiction to determine surplus area and the proviso lays down the procedure. It does not entitle prescribed authority to call upon tenure-holder to furnish statement under Section 10 in proceeding initiated prior to Oct. 1975. Before jurisdiction is exercised under this proviso case for redetermination has to be made out. The appellate authority was not justified in treating the proceedings started in 1978 as continuation of old proceedings. The earlier proceedings had come to an end by operation of law. It could not be revised or continued in the proviso. 6. Limitation for initiating action for redetermination has been provided in sub-section (3) of Section 31. It is two years from 10th October, 1975. As fresh notices for redetermination were issued in 1978 it was beyond time and, therefore, without jurisdiction. 7. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Additional District Judge and prescribed authority are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.