JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Admittedly Hanuman Singh was the tenure holder of the land in dispute and he died on 25-4-73. Proceedings for determination of surplus area were taken prior to amendment of the Act by U.P. Act XVIII of 1973. These proceedings had come to this Court and when the matter was pending before Prescribed Authority in consequence of direction issued by this Court the Act was amended and the proceedings were consequently abated. After abatement fresh notices were issued under the amended Act to Hanuman Singh although he was dead. Its validity was challenged. The appellate authority rejected it on sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 which reads as under: Where a tenure holder died before the publication of the general notice u/s 9, such publication shall be deemed to apply to his executor, administrator or other legal representatives and the Prescribed Authority may proceed to determine the selling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, administrator or other legal representatives were the tenure holder. 2. The question, therefore, is whether the initiation of proceeding against a tenure holder who was already dead on the relevant date was valid and could be continued under law. Section 5 of the Act provides that on and from the commencement of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (Amendment Act), 1972 no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout in U.P. any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him. It is the tenure holder on this day where ceiling area has to be determined. It being admitted that Hanuman Singh died he could not be considered to be a tenure holder of the land in dispute on 8th June, 1973. It devolved on his successors u/s 171 of UP ZA & LR Act. It is they who were the tenure holder under (?) therefore the notice issued to Hanuman Singh was without jurisdiction. 3. As regards sub-rule (2) of Rule 19, suffice it to say that it has been declared invalid in Horam Singh and Others Vs. District Judge and Others, (1978) AWC 758 . 4. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge are quashed. 3. As regards sub-rule (2) of Rule 19, suffice it to say that it has been declared invalid in Horam Singh and Others Vs. District Judge and Others, (1978) AWC 758 . 4. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge are quashed. It shall be open to the Prescribed Authority to issue a fresh notice to the Petitioners who are the sons and heirs of Hanuman Singh. The Petitioners shall be entitled to its costs.