ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - In this petition the order passed by Additional District Judge, in proceedings arising out of determination of surplus area under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, is challenged on numerous grounds. But the basic attack is on jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority to reopen proceedings under Section 13-A for determination of surplus area which had already become final. 2. It appears proceedings for determination of surplus area were decided by Prescribed Authority on 26th October, 1974 and appellate authority on 4th October, 1975. In 1978 fresh notice was issued on complaint that land situated in village Tivra-hohardar was not included while determining surplus area of petitioner. It was controverted but the Prescribed and Appellate Authority held that the petitioner was tenure holder of the land in dispute and as he was possessed on maximum ceiling area the entire land be declared surplus. 3. On facts found that petitioner was tenure-holder of land in dispute and not his nephew, a finding which is on question of fact and has not been shown to be vitiated, it is apparent that proceedings for determination of surplus area were contrary to provisions of law because disclosure of the entire land is responsibility of the tenure-holder. As the earlier order suffered from fundamental error of jurisdiction it could not be treated as final and binding. Even if it be and it is assumed that the order could not be rectified under Section 13-A the petitioner being guilty of concealing facts from Prescribed Authority it is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 4. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.