ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - The facts giving rise to this writ petition, in brief, are as under: Notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued to the petitioner and an area of 6.71 acres was proposed to be declared as surplus. Against this, the petitioner filed objection and raised a number of pleas. One of the pleas was that the petitioner was only a Karta and other members of family had share in the land which had been shown to belong to him. It was specifically alleged that his nephew Awadesh Singh, impleaded as opposite party No. 4 in this petition, was a tenure-holder of 8.84 acres and, therefore, the land held by him should not be included while determining ceiling area of the petitioner. None of the pleas advanced by the petitioner were accepted with the result that 6.71 acres as proposed was declared surplus. The petitioner did not file any appeal, instead he exercised his choice under Section 12-A of the Act and requested the prescribed authority to declare plots Nos. 942/58, 942/2 and 725 belonging to Awadesh Singh, to be declared as surplus. The prescribed authority accepted the choice. When this fact came to the knowledge of Awadesh Singh, he filed an objection before the prescribed authority that in a suit filed under Section 229-B/ 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951, these plots comprising an area 8.84 acres were declared to be his bhumidhari. Therefore, the petitioner was not its tenure-holder and he could not give it in his choice. The prescribed authority rejected the application against which Awadesh Singh filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge and the prescribed authority was directed to decide the objection afresh. While remanding the case to the prescribed authority, the appellate authority, however, issued further directions to the following effect:- "The appeal is allowed. The finding of the prescribed authority that an area of 7.71 acres in terms of irrigated land is fit to be declared as surplus against Raghu-nandan Singh is confirmed. The prescribed authority is directed to consider the objection of Awadesh Singh on merits." 2. The finding of the prescribed authority that an area of 7.71 acres in terms of irrigated land is fit to be declared as surplus against Raghu-nandan Singh is confirmed. The prescribed authority is directed to consider the objection of Awadesh Singh on merits." 2. In pursuance of this direction, the prescribed authority decided the objection of Awadesh Singh and held that the plots in dispute belong to Awadesh Singh, therefore, they could not be declared to be surplus of petitioner. He accordingly excluded these plots and directed other plots of petitioner to be declared as surplus land. Against this order, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, although it was observed by the District Judge that if petitioner had preferred an appeal against the original order passed by the prescribed authority declaring 6.71 acres as surplus, some relief could have been granted to petitioner but since he did not file any appeal and the appeal before him was confined only to the consideration of choice no relief could be granted to him. It is against this order passed by the District Judge and the prescribed authority that the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Before deciding the petition on merits, it may be observed that in the writ petition, the petitioner challenged only orders dated 22-4-1978 and 25-3-1977 passed by the District Judge and the prescribed authority deciding the objection of Awadesh Singh in respect of choice. But the petitioner has filed the first order passed by the prescribed authority on 28th June, 1976, by which he declared 6.71 acres as surplus of the petitioner. He has also filed the appellate order dated 14th December, 1976, passed by the Additional District Judge by which he remanded the case to the prescribed authority to decide the objection of Awadesh Singh and confirmed the finding of prescribed authority declaring 6.71 acres as surplus of petitioner. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel, it is expedient to permit the petitioner to challenge these orders as well The reason for permitting the petitioner to challenge these orders shall be clear by reason which shall be given hereafter. 5. On the finding recorded by the District Judge and prescribed authority, it is apparent that 8.84 acres of land which was included in holding of the petitioner in CLH Form-3, did not belong to him. 5. On the finding recorded by the District Judge and prescribed authority, it is apparent that 8.84 acres of land which was included in holding of the petitioner in CLH Form-3, did not belong to him. In other words, he was not its tenure-holder. This could not, therefore, be considered to be the holding of the petitioner and prescribed authority committed an error if law in determining surplus area of petitioner by including this land as belonging to petitioner. If the finding of the appellate authority dated 14th December, 1976 is accepted, then its effect in law would be that the ceiling area of petitioner which he is entitled to hold under law shall stand reduced by 8.84 acres. This could not be done under the Ceiling Act and would be in violation of the Constitution. No tenure-holder by operation of law or by an act of the Court shall be deprived of the ceiling area which he is entitled to hold. It is true that petitioner did not challenge the order passed by prescribed authority on 28th June, 1978, but that does not make any difference as the effect of accepting objection of Awadesh Singh was that this land could not be deemed to belong to petitioner. If the land did not belong to petitioner, then it could not be considered to be his holding. It is not possible, therefore to agree with the Additional District Judge that area held by Awadesh Singh should be excluded from the holding of petitioner and the surplus area declared by prescribed authority may be taken from other land held by him as it would be contrary to the Act itself. 6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by prescribed authority on 28th June, 1976 declaring 6.71 acres as surplus area of petitioner is quashed. It is not necessary to make any observation in respect of other orders as the basic order declaring surplus area of petitioner having been quashed, the question of exercise of choice of petitioner on taking other land of petitioner as surplus area, affirmance of the finding that 6.17 acres were surplus of petitioner, does not arise. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs.