ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - In the notice issued under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to petitioner the land held by his mother was also included. In the objection the petitioner claimed that his mother was a tenant in her own right of land situated in certain villages. But she transferred all land except one bigha 13 biswa prior to 8-6-1973 although after 24-1-1971. She died on 8-5-1973. Out of the land left by her the petitioner inherited only 11 biswa and 7 biswansis. The land inherited by him along with his land was under ceiling limit therefore the notice be discharged. 2. In respect of certain land notice was issued to petitioners mother as well. Subsequently it having been found that she was dead prior to 8-6-1973 notices were served on legal representatives. But the prescribed authority discharged the notice on 30-11-1974 and the other was upheld in appeal on 27-5-1975. 3. Proceedings in which notice had been served on petitioner was decided by prescribed authority on 3-7-1975. It was held that transfer made by mother being after 24-1-1971 was liable to be ignored under sub-section (6) of Sec. 5 of the Act. Consequently the land held by mother was held to have devolved on petitioner who thus became a tenure-holder holding land in excess of ceiling area. In appeal decided on 31-1-1976 the order of prescribed authority was set aside and the notice was discharged. The appellate authority held that the provisions of the Act applied to tenure-holders. And as the petitioner's mother was dead before 8-6-1973 she was not a tenure holder and the provisions of Act did not apply to her. Therefore the transfers made by her could not be subject of consideration under sub-sec (6) of Section 5 of the Act. And if the land which was transferred is not deemed to have devolved on petitioner then the land held by him along with 11 biswa 7 biswansis inherited from other did not exceed ceiling area. 4. After the Act was amended by U.P. Act 20 of 1976 and the prescribed authority was empowered to reopen proceedings for determination of ceiling area if the same had been done prior to 10-10-1975 the prescribed authority once again did not fail to issue fresh notice under Section 10 (2) including the land held by petitioners mother. 4. After the Act was amended by U.P. Act 20 of 1976 and the prescribed authority was empowered to reopen proceedings for determination of ceiling area if the same had been done prior to 10-10-1975 the prescribed authority once again did not fail to issue fresh notice under Section 10 (2) including the land held by petitioners mother. On 30-6-1979 notice was discharged. It was held, had she (petitioner's mother Tulsa Devi) been alive on 8-6-1973, no doubt the transfers made by her after 24-1-1971 would have been ignored and not taken into account in determining the ceiling area applicable to her as laid down in Section 5 of the Act, but she died prior to commencement of the Act, she was not a tenure holder for the purpose of this Act as such no question of ignoring these transfers arises. Still the State was not satisfied and it filed appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded for issuing notice to transferees of Tulsa Devi. It was held that, 'on one hand the state is disputing the transfers made by Smt. Tulsa Devi (at places described as Tulsa Devi and at others Tursa Devi) by sale deeds so that it is contended that the total land of Smt. Tursa Devi devolved upon Ram Nath (Petitioner) an his brothers. On the other hand the learned prescribed authority failed to serve any notice on the transferees. 5. As they are not parties to the case so far, the case cannot be decided on merits and there is no potion for me but to remand the case. 6. The approach of appellate authority is not easy to appreciate. The question was whether transfers made by petitioner's mother could be considered in proceedings initiated against petitioner. If it could not then the claim of State that those transfers were liable to be ignored would fall automatically. The question of impleadment of transferees could not arise. Normally in this view of the matter the appellate authority could have been directed to decide the appeal afresh. But the question whether transfers made by tulsa Devi could be looked into or not does not require any investigation of fact. 7. Sub-section (1) of section 5 prohibits a tenure-holder from holding any land on and from 8.6.1973 in excess of ceiling area. The provisions of the Act apply to tenure holder existing on that date. But the question whether transfers made by tulsa Devi could be looked into or not does not require any investigation of fact. 7. Sub-section (1) of section 5 prohibits a tenure-holder from holding any land on and from 8.6.1973 in excess of ceiling area. The provisions of the Act apply to tenure holder existing on that date. If somebody was dead prior to that date then his interest devolved on his heirs and on 8.6.1973 it is the heirs who are tenure-holders and not the deceased. Various sub-section (6) says that in determining ceiling area applicable to tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after 24.1.1971 shall be ignored them it means transfer made by a tenure-holder whose ceiling area is to be determined under sub-section (1) it does not apply to transfers made by third persons. 8. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by additional judge is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.