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 a notice under section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. This was the first notice issued under section 10 (2). The objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-12- 74. a true copy whereof is annexure `A' to the petition. 3. It seems that subsequently after the amendment of the Act, a fresh notice was issued u; s. 10 (2) and the objections were filed and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 18-2-77. An appeal was filed against the said order and the same was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh determination. The Prescribed Authority then decided the case on 17-10-78 and a true copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority is annexure `B' to the petition. Thereafter two cross-appeals were filed, one by the State and the other by the tenure-holder. Both the appeals were decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 22-5-80, a true copy whereof is annexure `C' to the petition. A certified copy of the judgment is also on the record. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the Learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the subsequent notice issued was illegal in law. In my view, this contention cannot be raised at this stage. No such contention was raised before the Prescribed Authority and there is no discussion about the same in the order of the Prescribed Authority. Further, the same was not pressed before the appellate court and at this stage it will not be proper and just to allow this contention to be raised. However, another contention was raised and it finds place in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. It may he somewhat similar to the contention which has been pressed before me by the Learned counsel for the petitioner but in fact, it is a separate contention. However, another contention was raised and it finds place in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. It may he somewhat similar to the contention which has been pressed before me by the Learned counsel for the petitioner but in fact, it is a separate contention. The point is that an earlier finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings must be held to be binding in the subsequent ceiling proceedings, unless due to change in the ceiling law, subsequently brought about, a fresh finding is necessitated. It should be seen that before the Prescribed Authority an issue was framed as to whether the earlier finding would operate as res judicata or not. The Prescribed Authority has stated that no submission was made on the said point. However, that is a different matter but the contention undoubtedly was raised that earlier findings made in the earlier ceiling proceedings should operate as res judicata in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. This aspect assumes importance in view of the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier ceiling proceedings the entire land was treated as unirrigated and there was no justification for giving a fresh finding in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. It should be seen that it is not a case where the State might have taken a stand that after the earlier ceiling proceedings were over, fresh source of irrigation came into existence attacking S. 29 of the Act. This is not the State's case. While going through' the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority (Annexure A) I find that even then on behalf of the State a point had been made that there was boring in the petitioner's holding and the land was being irrigated from such source. However, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the Prescribed Authority held that the entire land was unirrigated. It was not open to the ceiling authorities in the subsequent ceiling proceedings to render a contrary finding on the basis of the Naib Tehsildar's statement. In this view of the matter, I accept the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned appellate judgment dated 22-5-80 is bad in law. So also the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-10-80 is bad in law. 5. In this view of the matter, I accept the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned appellate judgment dated 22-5-80 is bad in law. So also the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-10-80 is bad in law. 5. The other contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner must also be accepted that the benefit which the petitioner had got in the earlier ceiling proceedings in respect of one adult son and the number of members of the family could also not be changed in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. It should be seen that in the earlier ceiling proceeding such benefit to the maximum extent of six hectares of land was extended to the tenure-holder and he was entitled to get the same benefit of additional land in the subsequent ceiling proceedings also. In this connection a reference may be made to a Division Bench pronouncement in Krishna Kumar v. State, (Writ No. 3073/78) decided on 21-9-1979 which affirmed the Single Judge pronouncement in Ram Lal v. State, (1978 All L J 1197). Therefore, when the subsequent ceiling proceedings took place, the position was that whatever land was liable to be declared as surplus under the ceiling law had already been declared as surplus and no further surplus land was to be declared in the subsequent ceiling proceedings. 6. This petition accordingly succeeds and the judgment of the appellate court dated 22-5- 80 and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-10-80 are hereby quashed and the subsequent notice issued under section 10 (2) of the Act will stand discharged. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.