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 is the State before me. The respondent No. 2 was treated as the tenure-holder and she filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by an earlier order, which is alleged to have been passed in June, 1974. However, no copy of the said order is annexed to the petition. We are not really concerned with the same. It seems that after the Amendment of the ceiling law, a fresh notice was issued and objections were filed A true copy of the said objections is annexure 1 to the petition. The Prescribed Authority disposed of the said objections by his order dL. 17-7-1976, a true copy whereof is annexure Zito the petition. 31 bighas, 18 biswas and 3 biswansis of unirrigated land equivalent to 23 bighas. 1 biswas and 6 biswansis of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Thereafter the said tenure-holder filed an appeal and the same was allowed in part and it was directed that "plot No. 1221 measuring 1 bigha from the holding of the appellant" shall be excluded. The Prescribed Authority thereafter carried out the directions contained in the remand order and passed his order dated 12-1-1979, a true copy whereof is annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter the tenure-holder filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate court on 28-2-1979, a true copy whereof is annexure 10 to the petition. Thereafter the tenure-holder moved an application under section 13A, a true copy whereof is annexure 5 to the petition. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30-1-1979. Thereafter the tenure-holder filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 12-2-1980, a true copy whereof is annexure 7 to the petition. A certified opposite of the same is also on the record. 3. Now the State has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel. In opposition, I have heard Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, who is the tenure-holder. On behalf of the State it has been contended that the Prescribed Authority was justified in rejecting the application under section 13A. In opposition, I have heard Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, who is the tenure-holder. On behalf of the State it has been contended that the Prescribed Authority was justified in rejecting the application under section 13A. A contention was sought to be canvassed in the proceedings under section 13A, which had already been negatived by the appellate court in its judgment dated 28-2-1979. This contention seems to me to be correct. Whether the appellate court was right or wrong on 28-2-79 in rejecting the contention placed on behalf of the tenure holder as to the applicability of the law laid down by this court in Jhandoo v. State of U.P. (1977 All W C 358) , there can he little doubt that once the contention had been rejected by the appellate court in the said judgment dated 28-2-1979, it was not permissible to the tenure-holder to raise the same contention again by taking recourse to Section 13A. The appellate court by its impugned judgment was almost setting aide the earlier judgment passed by the appellate court on 28-2-79 and this was not permissible in law. In this view of the matter, it is really not necessary to go into many questions and controversies which Sri Trivedi sought to place before me. However, I shall notice the contentions for the sake of completeness. Learned counsel contended that no Notice u/ s. 9(2) was issued to the tenure-holder. I shall like to say that this contention is not open to the tenure-holder in view of the fact that in the proceedings under section 13A it was never raised. However, such a point had been raised in the objections which had been filed by the tenure-holder on 6-11- 1975. As stated above, a true copy of those objections is annexure 1 to the petition. From para 10 of the said objections it seems that the tenure-holder was raising a grievance that no notice under section 9(2) of the Act was given to her in accordance with the proviso to the said sub-section because she spoke of a notice addressed to the tenure-holder. The objection in para No. 10 cannot be construed as an objection that there was absence of a general notice under section 9(2). The notice under the proviso to S. 9(2) is permissive and not mandatory. The objection in para No. 10 cannot be construed as an objection that there was absence of a general notice under section 9(2). The notice under the proviso to S. 9(2) is permissive and not mandatory. This proviso was added by the' U.P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975, which was subsequently replaced by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 and in the context of the provisions contained in the said Ordinance, it was open to the prescribed (sic) from the tenure-holder by issuing a notice seeking information. If no, such notice under the proviso was issued then no objection can he taken. However, all this discussion. I must observe. is rather academic and unnecessary because the said objection was never pressed before the Prescribed Authority as is clear from the Prescribed Authority's order dated 17-7-76. Annexure 2 to the petition) and thereafter ,in appeal was filed against the said order of the Prescribed Authority but again no such objection was taken and the remand order dated 12-11-76 was a final order which directed that the surplus land was to be calculated after excluding plot No. 1221 from the holding of the tenure-holder. In the subsequent proceedings also, whether those which took place before the Prescribed Authority after the remand or in the appeal against the order which was passed by the Prescribed Authority after remand, or in the proceedings under section 13A, no such contention was even raised and, therefore, it is not open to Sri Trivedi to seek to raise the said contention in this petition. 4. Learned counsel also wanted to contend that the reduction in the consolidation proceedings should have been taken not of by the Prescribed Authority in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Satyapal v. State (1979 All L J 1259), which had approved the single Judge pronouncement in Jhandoo v. State (1977 All W C 31K) : AIR 1977 NOC 3541. Again, this contention is not acceptable because, as I have stated above. the contention about the reduction in the consolidation proceedings stood rejected by the appellate court and the same point which had been rejected by the appellate court could not be reargued before the appellate court by way of an application under section 13A. Again, this contention is not acceptable because, as I have stated above. the contention about the reduction in the consolidation proceedings stood rejected by the appellate court and the same point which had been rejected by the appellate court could not be reargued before the appellate court by way of an application under section 13A. Learned counsel wanted to say that the reduction in the area was the result of, not only on account of the sale deed which had been accepted in the consolidation proceedings and which had not been accepted in the ceiling proceedings, but that reduction was due to some other factors also. It should be seen that this position was never taken up before the Prescribed Authority in the proceedings under section 13A. So far as the sale deed was concerned, which was dated 17-3-1975, it was very correctly ignored by the ceiling authorities and the fact that it was acceptable to the consolidation authorities could have no significance for the adjudication by the ceiling authorities. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 12-2-1980 is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.