ORDER R.M. Sahat, J. - By way of this petition the main relief sought is of mandamus against State for restitution of possession of 2.29 acres of land over which possession was taken by it in pursuance of the order dated 4-9-1975 passed by prescribed authority under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Subsequently fresh proceedings were started against petitioner after amendment of the Act by U.P. Act 20 of 1976 and it was claimed that the petitioner was possessed of 6.29 acres of surplus land on 8-6-1973. The notice was contested and the petitioner claimed that as some of that land was unirrigated and others were single crop lands, the total area if worked out in terms of unirrigated (land) then petitioner was left with no surplus area. The claim was rejected as 2.29 was already in possession of State 4.50 only was declared surplus. In appeal the order was set aside. The petitioner's contention that plot No. 642 having an area of 17.60 acres except. 89 acre was unirrigated was accepted. It was held that petitioner had no surplus land. On 19-4-1979 an application for restoring possession over 2.29 acres was filed before prescribed authority. This was rejected against which petitioner filed an appeal and it, was held that in the earlier order passed by appellate authority there was no declaration that even considering the earlier order the petitioner was possessed of no surplus area. As the petitioner did not get it clarified his application for restitution of possession over 2.29 acres was misconceived. 2. Having heard learned counsel for parties it appears that the order passed by District Judge and prescribed authority cannot be maintained. The total area of plot No. 642 as mentioned in the order of prescribed authority appears to be 17.60 acres. If the entire area is treated to he unirrigated, as has been held by appellate authority, then in terms of irrigated land it shall stand reduced approximately to 11 acres. It would thus result in diminishing surplus by nearly 6 acres. It was because of this reason that appellate authority held that petitioner was left with no surplus area. If the entire area is treated to he unirrigated, as has been held by appellate authority, then in terms of irrigated land it shall stand reduced approximately to 11 acres. It would thus result in diminishing surplus by nearly 6 acres. It was because of this reason that appellate authority held that petitioner was left with no surplus area. It is-true that he did not make it clear in his order that the declaration made by him was in respect of 2.29 acres as well, but from the calculation mentioned above it is apparent that it was in respect of the total area held by petitioner. As the proceeding were in respect of the entire land held by petitioner the order of District Judge that petitioner held no surplus area shall be deemed to include earlier area declared as surplus. There is no clibstance in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that these proceedings were in respect of 4.50 acres only. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit in this respect is not very clear. In paragraph 4 it has been mentioned that in the statement sent along with notice issued under Section 31 of U. P. Act 20 of 1976 related the area of 6.79 acres which was shown to be surplus and a note was added in red ink that as possession of 2.29 acres has already been taken the proposed surplus land was to be declared as 4.50. This clearly indicates that proceedings were in respect of the entire land held by petitioner, Even otherwise once fresh proceedings were instituted under the amended Act they could not relate to a part of the holding. It must be taken to have been in relation to the entire area held by petitioner. 3. There is yet another reason for concluding that the State cannot retain possession over 2.29 acres of land. Notice for redetermination of surplus area was issued under Act 20 of 1976. The significance of such notice is mentioned in Section 31 itself. It provides that once prescribed authority has issued notice for redetermination of surplus area then any order passed prior to Oct., 1975 irrespective of pendency or its decision shall stand abated. It has been held by Division Bench that once proceedings for redetermination are initiated earlier proceedings which had been decided prior to October, 1975 become non-existent. It provides that once prescribed authority has issued notice for redetermination of surplus area then any order passed prior to Oct., 1975 irrespective of pendency or its decision shall stand abated. It has been held by Division Bench that once proceedings for redetermination are initiated earlier proceedings which had been decided prior to October, 1975 become non-existent. The possession therefore, taken by State in pursuance of the order which was passed prior to October, 1975 could not be considered to possession in accordance with law. The State is, therefore, hound to restore possession over the land it took possession in pursuance of the order passed by prescribed authority. 4. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Additional District Judge and prescribed authority are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is further directed to calculation the excess area to which petitioner was entitled as a result of declaration that plot No, 642 was unirrigated. If the entire area which as a result of this calculation comes to 6.79 acres then the petition shall be entitled to restitution of possession over the entire 2.29 acres. In case is lesser than that then after deducting that, the remaining area shall be restored. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.