JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J.- By way of this petition orders dated 26th August 1977 and 12th August 1975 passed by Additional District Judge in proceedings arising out of determination of surplus area of opposite party No. 4 are sought to be quashed. Admittedly opposite party was tenant who transferred 5 Bighas, 7 biswas and 1 biswansi of plot No. 48 to petitioners on 13th April, 1972 by registered sale deed. During ceiling proceedings opposite party claimed that the transfer was bona fide, therefore land covered by the sale deed should be excluded while determining his ceiling area. The petitioners were also impleaded as parties. The Prescribed Authority did not agree and held that transfer having been made after 24th January 1971 was liable to be ignored. Against this order opposite party filed appeal but did not implead the petitioners. His appeal was dismissed on 12th August 1975 but the Additional District Judge accepted his choice and issued direction to the Prescribed Authority to take surplus area, 1 bigha, 10 biswas and 15 biswansis from plot No. 48. It is not necessary to consider whether acceptance of choice was proper or not but it is admitted that in the appeal petitioners were not impleaded as parties. When the order was sought to be implemented the petitioners came to know of it and filed an application under Section 13-A for rectification. This was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. In appeal it was held that although it was a fact that appeal was decided behind the back of the petitioners without notice to them but as there was no provision in the Act or rules laying down impleadment of transferees the order passed in appeal could not be said to be invalid. It was further held that Section 12-A of the Act could not be held to be absolute or conclusive. 2. When this petition came up for hearing earlier it was found, order dated 26th August 1977 has only been challenged. The petitioners however took time and by way of supplementary affidavit filed certified copy of the order dated 12th August 1975 and 12th February 1981 and sought its quashing. Before considering the correctness of order dated 26th August 1977 it is necessary to examine whether order dated 12th August 1975 can be maintained. The petitioners however took time and by way of supplementary affidavit filed certified copy of the order dated 12th August 1975 and 12th February 1981 and sought its quashing. Before considering the correctness of order dated 26th August 1977 it is necessary to examine whether order dated 12th August 1975 can be maintained. It being admitted that petitioners were parties before Prescribed Authority it was necessary for opposite parties to implead them in appeal. If the order passed by appellate authority would not have been against the petitioners then their impleadment could not have been material but as surplus land of opposite party was directed to be taken from plot which was transferred to them the petitioners were directly effected. The order therefore was passed by appellate authority to the prejudice of the petitioners without their impleadment which was against the principle of natural justice. The order passed by Appellate Authority therefore cannot be maintained. 3. As regards the order dated 26th August 1977 it is not necessary to pass an order as basic order in pursuance of which the surplus area of petitioner has been taken having been quashed it is not necessary to quash this order. 4. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17th August 1975 passed by Additional District Judge Kanpur is quashed. He is directed to decide the appeal afresh. Any order passed in consequence of this order automatically falls through. The order dated 26th August 1977 passed by Additional District Judge and 18th April 1977 passed by prescribed authority on application filed under Section 13-A by petitioner is not quashed but it shall not be taken as against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs from opposite party.