ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are these : The petitioner No. 2 Prabhat Kumar was treated as the tenure-holder and the notice under S. 10 (2) of the act was issued to him. He had effected certain transfer deeds and the petitioner No. 1 Ramendra Pal Singh is such a transferee from the petitioner No. 2 Prabhat Kumar. Objections were filed before the Prescribed Authority by the said tenure holder Prabhat Kumar and by the said transferee Ramendra Pal Singh and by the other transferees also. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 4-6-1979 decided the said objections. A true copy of the said order is annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 8-4-1980. A certified copy of the said judgment is on the record and its true copy, is annexure 2 to the petition. Now the petitioners have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition the learned Standing counsel has made his submissions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the various sale deeds executed by the tenure-holder including that in favour of petitioner No. 1 were wrongly ignored by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter by the appellate Court. I have gone through the judgment of the appellate Court and through the order of the Prescribed Authority and in my view it is not possible to interfere in this petition in the findings recorded by the said authorities. The contention raised in this petition in respect of the transfer deeds is identical with those which were advanced in the two connected writ petitions, being No. 5851 of 1980 and 4498 of 1980, (reported in 1981 All L J 1011) and for the reasons which I have given in detail in my judgment of date disposing of the said two connected writ petitions. I am of the view that so far as the controversy about the transfer deeds is concerned, this petition also lacks merit and the contention in respect of the transfer deeds should be rejected. 4. Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, next contended that in respect of plots Nos. I am of the view that so far as the controversy about the transfer deeds is concerned, this petition also lacks merit and the contention in respect of the transfer deeds should be rejected. 4. Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, next contended that in respect of plots Nos. 28, 32 and 77 the position was that these three plots were jointly owned by three brothers the petitioner No. 2 Prabhat Kumar, Shri Krishna Kumar, who is the petitioner in writ petition No. 5851 of 1980 and Sri Harish Chandra. These three brothers are sons of one Sitaram. This averment is contained in paragraph 16 of this petition and there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State denying the correctness of the said allegation; in this view of the matter, the aforesaid allegation can be accepted as correct. It was pointed out that the appellate Court while deciding the appeal of Krishna Kumar gave benefit to him in respect of certain parts of the said three plots, namely, plots Nos. 28, 32 and 77. It is not clear from the order passed by the appellate Court in the case of Krishna Kumar as to whether benefit was given to the extent of ?rd or to any other extent. However, it seems to met that the appellate Court lost sight of the said aspect of the matter while deciding the case of Prabhat Kumar and it seems to me that if some benefit has been given to one co-tenure holder in respect of same land which is commonly owned by the other co-tenure holder also (and where no demarcation has taken place) then such benefit should be extended to all the co-owners. 5. Accordingly, I quash the judgment of the appellate Court in so far as the benefit in respect of plots Nos. 28, 32 and 77 is concerned. The appellate Court is directed to decide whether the petitioner No. 2 in this case, namely, Sri Prabhat Kumar is also entitled to the benefit in respect of the said three plots, if so, to what extent, in the light of the appellate Court's judgment in the case of his brother Krishna Kumar. 28, 32 and 77 is concerned. The appellate Court is directed to decide whether the petitioner No. 2 in this case, namely, Sri Prabhat Kumar is also entitled to the benefit in respect of the said three plots, if so, to what extent, in the light of the appellate Court's judgment in the case of his brother Krishna Kumar. The same benefit should be extended to Prabhat Kumar also as has been extended to Krishna Kumar in respect of the said three plots which are claimed to be commonly owned by the three brothers as has been stated above. The ceiling area and the surplus land should be re calculated thereafter. The tenure-holder will also be allowed to exercise his fresh choice under S. 12 of the Act. 6. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.