ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief, are these :- 2. The petitioner was issued the notice under section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 6-7-76 a true copy whereof is annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was partly allowed by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 9-2-77 a true copy whereof is annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority recalculated the surplus land in accordance with the appellate Court's judgment and a true copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 9-2-79 is annexure 3 to the petition. A certified copy of the said order is also on the record. Thereafter this petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the appellate judgment dated 9-2-77 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 9-2-79. A learned Single Judge of this Court had been pleased to condone the delay in filing of this petition by his order dated 15-1-81 and, therefore, the said aspect of the matter need now be gone into. 3. Sri R. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when Khasras for 1378 and 1379 Faslis had not been prepared then the Khasras preceding the said fasli years should have been looked into and for the said purpose he placed reliance on Fakher Uddin Khan v. State of U.P., (1980 Rev. Dec. (SOC ) 11). In the said case the ceiling Authorities had looked into the Khasra 1381 fasli and this court emphasised that in a situation like this khasras of the fasli years prior to 1378 fasli should have also been looked into and not of 1381 fasli alone. R. 3 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules. 1961 lays down as follows : In areas where due to consolidation operations or record operations or any other reason no khasras were prepared during the years mentioned in S. 4A the Prescribed Authority while examining other records may also examine available Khasras for the three last years preceding the year in which the Khasra was not prepared." 4. 1961 lays down as follows : In areas where due to consolidation operations or record operations or any other reason no khasras were prepared during the years mentioned in S. 4A the Prescribed Authority while examining other records may also examine available Khasras for the three last years preceding the year in which the Khasra was not prepared." 4. The aforesaid rule clearly lays down that when due to consolidation operations or record operations or any other reason no Khasras were prepared for the years mentioned in S. 4A i.e. for 1378. 1379 and 1380 faslis, then while examining other, records the Prescribed Authority may also examine available khasras for the latest three, years preceding the year in which the Khasra was not prepared. It should be seen in the instant case that the Khasra for 1350 (1380) fasli was prepared and, therefore, the authorities below were justified in deciding: the case on the basis of khasra entries of 1380 fasli. It should be appreciated that S. 4A, clearly lays down that if in any of the three fasli years, namely 1378, 1379 and 1380 fasli, the requirements laid down in the said section stood fulfilled then the land would be treated as irrigated. Moreover, the grievance which' has been canvassed before me seems to lack a basis in the sense the appellate Court; relying upon the Khasra entry, treated plot No. 83 of Village Muria Pamar to be unirrigated and granted relief to the petitioner on that basis. In fact the petitioner succeeded in the appellate court and I cannot understand why he is raising a grievance against the judgment of the appellate Court on this ground. This contention is accordingly rejected. 5. Learned counsel next contended that the appellate Court was not justified in not allowing an objection to be raised before it even though it had not been raised before the Prescribed Authority. It should be seen that under section 12 of the Act the Prescribed Authority has to deal with the objections filed under section 10 (2) or under section 11 (2) or because of an appellate order under section 13. Therefore, unless an objection had been raised in any of the aforesaid manners, the Prescribed Authority was not expected to deal with such an objection. Therefore, unless an objection had been raised in any of the aforesaid manners, the Prescribed Authority was not expected to deal with such an objection. Of course the Prescribed Authority may in his descretion allow a tenure-holder to raise an objection even though it was not originally raised under section 10 (2). The appeal under section 13 is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the appellate order is also confined to the controversies which have been dealt with by the Prescribed Authority. However, the appellate Court may also in its discretion allow a point to be canvassed even though it was not canvassed before the Prescribed Authority. This follows from the fact that the appellate Court under section 38 of the Act has all the powers and privileges of a civil court and has to follow the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code for the hearing and disposal of the appeals. However, the matter rests in the discretion of the authorities below and within the limited ambit of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. 6. This petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.