JUDGMENT R.R. Rstogi, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Smt. Vijailaxmi. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that late Lalchhatrapal Singh was recorded as Bhumidhar of 42.76 acres agricultural land in village Rausingpur, pargana Kurauli, Tahsil and district Mainpuri. He died on 10-1-1966 leaving behind his widow, Smt. Vijai Laxmi, the present petitioner and one son Raj Pratap Singh. After his death his son's name was recorded in the papers on the aforesaid holding. A notice under Section 10 (g) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereafter 'the Act' along with the statement was served on him. Both, he and his mother, filed objections to that notice. The objection filed by the mother was to the effect that her husband Lal Chhatrapal Singh had made a will on 17-6-64 whereby he had bequeathed Bhumidhari holding in favour of his wife and son in equal shares, and hence she was Bhumidhar of one half share in the said holding and the same could not be treated as part of her son's holding. The objection filed by the son was that the major portion held by him was unirrigated and capable of growing only one crop in an agricultural year and there was no surplus land with him. The prescribed Authority proceeded with these objections together and after considering the evidence on record, in regard to the will held that it was unregistered and it could be prepared at any time. Emphasis was laid on the fact that this will had not been produced in proceedings under the Consolidation of Land Holdings Act nor effect had been given to it in revenue papers. According to the prescribed Authority, therefore, it appears that the will had been executed to evade the provisions of the Ceiling Act. In respect of the objection filed by Raj Pratap Singh the prescribed Authority accepted that some of the land was unirrigated but about the other land held that it was irrigated land. Thus, by its order dated 20-1-75 it declared 13.91 acres irrigated land as surplus. 2. From that order appeals were filed both by Smt. Vijai Laxmi and her son. These appeals were decided by the District Judge, Mainpuri, by a common judgment and order dated 18-5-1976. Thus, by its order dated 20-1-75 it declared 13.91 acres irrigated land as surplus. 2. From that order appeals were filed both by Smt. Vijai Laxmi and her son. These appeals were decided by the District Judge, Mainpuri, by a common judgment and order dated 18-5-1976. In the appeal of Smt. Vijai Laxmi he confirmed the finding of the prescribed Authority. He, however, took the date of the will as 17th November 1974 and adopted the reasons which had been given by the prescribed Authority for holding that it was not genuine. In the son's appeal he accepted the contention in regard to some other plots and allowed it partly and remanded the case to the prescribed Authority with a direction to determine surplus area in accordance with the finding given by him. The present petition by Smt. Vijai Laxmi is directed against this judgment and order. 3. To complete the narration of facts, after remand the Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 10-10-77, again declared 13.97 acres as surplus land with Raj Pratap Singh. He filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed on 17-7-78 and thereafter he came to this Court by way of writ petition being Civil Misc. writ petition No. 8770 of 1978. That petition was dismissed on 10-4-1979. Although in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated in para 8 that the entire matter regarding the will has been finally concluded by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and now the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge that decision, but, I find that actually the question of the genuineness or otherwise of the will was not involved in that writ petition. This fact is not, now, disputed before me. Therefore, in the son's petition this Court had no occasion to examine the validity of the aforesaid will. 4. It has been submitted before me on behalf of the petitioner that the finding given by the appellate Court on the genuineness of the will cannot be sustained because it started with a wrong premise that the will was executed on 17-11-1974 and did not see the light of the day till the proceedings under the Act had started. 4. It has been submitted before me on behalf of the petitioner that the finding given by the appellate Court on the genuineness of the will cannot be sustained because it started with a wrong premise that the will was executed on 17-11-1974 and did not see the light of the day till the proceedings under the Act had started. As regards the reasons given by the appellate court for holding the will as not genuine, that mutation was not effected in pursuance of this will and secondly that on its basis Smt. Vijai Laxmi did not get her chak carved out in consolidation proceedings, it was contended that the mother did not bother to have her name recorded in the papers' after the death of her husband on the basis of this will, because of her amicable relations with her son and also for the consideration that after her death her share also would go to her son and the occasion to save the holding arose when proceedings under the Ceiling Act were taken. 5. It was, further, contended that the fact that the petitioner din not get her chak carved out in the consolidation proceedings would not bar her from making her claim in proceedings under the Ceiling Act. It was emphasised that Section 49 of the Consolidation Act is not applicable because the Prescribed Authority constituted under Ceiling Act is not Civil Court nor Revenue Court within the meaning of that Act, Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Chetanya Raj Singh v. Second Additional Civil Judge, 1977 AWC 289, which has been approved by a Full Bench in Ramcharan v. State, 1978 AWC 677 (Full Bench). On the contrary it was urged by the learned Standing Counsel that it may be that the appellate Court mistook the date of the will as 17th November, 1974, instead of 17th November, 1964, but it has recorded its finding in regard to genuineness after considering the evidence on record and circumstances of the case and the finding so arrived at cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. 6. After hearing counsel for parties and considering the submissions made before me I think that the matter needs reconsideration, it is not at one place that it has been considered by the appellate Court that the will was executed on 17th November, 1974, but it is at two places and how far this mistake influenced its decision, cannot be seen. Any-how it cannot be disputed that this aspect must have influenced its decision. Further, so far as the question that effect was not given to the will by obtaining mutation in the revenue papers, the explanation given on behalf of the petitioner cannot be dismissed as entirely irrelevant or improbable. After all it is the conduct of a normal prudent person which is relevant for consideration. So far as the question that the petitioner did not get her chak carved out in consolidation proceedings is concerned, that also will not bar the petitioner from urging her claim in the ceiling proceedings Section 49 of the Ceiling Act does not stand in her way as laid down in the aforesaid two cases. Apart from that under Section 38-B the ceiling authorities are requited to examine and adjudicate upon this question independently of what happened in the consolidation proceedings. Before parting with this case it may be noted that it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petition had been filed after a considerable delay and hence it should be dismissed on this very ground. I find that after filing this petition the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay and it was after considering that affidavit that the writ was admitted. I, therefore, do not think that the petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the case is remanded to the appellate authority for decision afresh according to law. There will be no order as to costs.