ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - These three petitions are connected as the petitioners are real brothers and common questions are involved in all of them. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by one common judgment. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. Each petitioner was treated as the tenure-holder and notices under S. 10(2) of the Act were issued to each one of them. It may be stated here that there have been successive ceiling proceedings each one of which started with the issuance of a fresh notice under S. 10(2) of the Act. It seems that the first notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued to the three petitioners in March, 1974 and determination was done after deciding objections filed by the petitioners by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 13th December, 1974. Some land of each of the three petitioners was declared as surplus. Two cross-appeals were filed one by the tenure-holder and the other by the State in the case of each petitioner. In other words, there were in all six connected appeals and cross-appeals. All of them were disposed of by one common judgment passed by the appellate court on 23rd October, 1975. Thereafter, three writ petitions were filed, one by each of the three petitioners and all of them were dismissed on 12-2-1976 on the ground that they had become infructuous. It seems that this was so done because a fresh notice under S. 10(2) of the Act had been issued by the Prescribed Authority, wherein lands of the petitioners were sought to be clubbed with the lands held by the petitioners' father presumably treating the father as the real tenure-holder and the sons as merely ostensibly recorded. Objections were filed and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31st December, 1976. Thereafter, five connected appeals were filed and they were disposed of by one common judgment dated 3-7-1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 7 to the petition. The appellate court set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the notice issued to the petitioners' father Anand Swarup Dublish under S. 10(2) of the Act was quashed. Thereafter, five connected appeals were filed and they were disposed of by one common judgment dated 3-7-1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 7 to the petition. The appellate court set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the notice issued to the petitioners' father Anand Swarup Dublish under S. 10(2) of the Act was quashed. The reason why the notice was quashed, is to be found in the following extract from the said judgment of the appellate court: "After this decision, the case should have been remanded for fresh writing of judgment, but, on the date of the hearing the parties have given statement on paper 15 Ka-2. Both parties had mentioned that according to the appellant they are separate tenure-holders and the State counsel had agreed that if it is so, the notice under section 10(2) should have been given separately to each tenure-holder and if separate tenure-holders have been given one notice, this can hardly be treated as a valid notice because the whole proceedings which have been done on the basis of illegal notices have to be quashed and then there will be no question of remanding the case." Thereafter, the third notice under S. 10(2) read with S. 13-A of the Act was issued. However, there is an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27-2-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 9 to the petitions. The order is as follows :- "I have heard Learned counsel for the tenure-holder and also seen the reply. In view of para 5 of the said application fresh notice be issued." Thereafter, the fourth and the last notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued to each of the three petitioners and ceiling proceedings were sought to be started. It seems that the three petitioners before me filed identical objections and a preliminary objection was taken that it was not open to the State to reopen the first ceiling proceedings which had been started by the notice dated 28-3-1974. The true copy of the objections filed by the tenure-holders is Annexure 11 to each of the three petitions. The prescribed Authority rejected the aforesaid preliminary objection by his order dated 13-6-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 12 to the petitions. The true copy of the objections filed by the tenure-holders is Annexure 11 to each of the three petitions. The prescribed Authority rejected the aforesaid preliminary objection by his order dated 13-6-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 12 to the petitions. Thereafter, three separate appeals were filed by the three petitioners before the appellate court and they were dismissed on the ground that they were not maintainable. A true copy of the appellate judgment dated 18-8-1980 is Annexure 15 to the petitions. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the three petitioners have come up in the instant writ petitions and in support thereof, I have heard Sri S. S. Bhatnagar. learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition the Learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. As I have stated above the appellate court dismissed the appeals on the ground that no appeal was maintainable against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority disposing of a preliminary objection. I would not like to say anything on the merits of the said verdict of the appellate court. However, it has seemed to me that in the facts of the instant case, the Prescribed Authority was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection, which had been raised by the three petitioners, to the issuance of the fresh notice under S. 10(2) of the Act. It should be seen that the ceiling law has been amended from time to time and certain amendments have been far reaching in their ambit and scope. The Act was enacted as far back as in 1960. Drastic amendments were introduced by the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 (U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973) which came into force with effect from 8-6-1973. This was the most radical amending Act in the history of the Ceiling Law of the State. Inter alia, it provided for the issuance of general notice under S. 9(2) of the Act calling for a statement from such tenure-holders who held land in excess of the ceiling area on 8-6-1973. S. 10(1) provided that when there was a failure on the part of the tenure- holder concerned to make returns voluntarily then the prescribed Authority would get a Statement prepared containing such particulars as may be prescribed. S. 10(1) provided that when there was a failure on the part of the tenure- holder concerned to make returns voluntarily then the prescribed Authority would get a Statement prepared containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Sub-s. (2) of S. 10 of the Act provides for issuance of a notice to the particular tenure-holder concerned, who would be supplied copy of the statement prepared under S. 10(1) of the Act along with the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act. Sections 11 and 12 of the Act provide for the determination of the surplus land and S. 13 provides for appeals being filed by the parties aggrieved. 5. Subsequently, the Act under-went further amendments. The amendments were effected by Ordinances which were subsequently replaced by Amending Acts. One such amending Act was U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1974 being the U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975 and thereafter, the U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 was passed which in its turn was replaced by the U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 and the latter was replaced by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. These Amending Acts made certain amendments in certain provisions of the parent Act and certain transitory provisions were made in such Amending Acts which laid down the manner in which the ceiling proceedings, whether concluded or pending, were to be decided in consequence of the amendments made in the parent Act by the Amending Acts. In this connection S. 31 of the U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 is relevant. Sub- Ss. (1) and (2) of the said section can be conveniently left as they have no bearing on the controversy at hand. In this connection S. 31 of the U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 is relevant. Sub- Ss. (1) and (2) of the said section can be conveniently left as they have no bearing on the controversy at hand. However, Sub-s. (3) of the S. 31 is important and is reproduced below: "Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act, before the tenth day of October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may, at any time within a period of two years from the said case, redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land." Now in the instant case in the first ceiling proceedings the Prescribed Authority passed his order on 31-12-1974. Therefore, the order was passed before 10th October, 1975 and in accordance with the provisions contained in the aforesaid sub-s. (3) of the S. 31 of the Act, it would have been open to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus land of the tenure-holder within a period of two years `from the said date'. Such redetermination had to be done in accordance with the principal Act as amended by the Amending Act (U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976). 6. It is not necessary to advert to the controversy as to whether the subsequent notices, which were issued to the three petitioners under S. 10 (2) of the Act, were justified on the basis of the particular amendments brought about by the subsequent Amending Acts. The petitions can be disposed of on another ground, namely, that the impugned notice was issued., on 13th March, 1980 and on the said date, the period of Limitation laid down in sub-s. (3) of S. 31 of the Act had already elapsed. The petitions can be disposed of on another ground, namely, that the impugned notice was issued., on 13th March, 1980 and on the said date, the period of Limitation laid down in sub-s. (3) of S. 31 of the Act had already elapsed. In these three petitions again I do not wish to enter into the controversy as to whether the period of two years prescribed in sub-s. (3) of S. 31 of the Act relates to the period within which the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act has to be issued or it relates to the passing of an order by the Prescribed Authority after disposing of the objections filed by the tenure-holder. In the facts of the instant three petitions, it will be seen that even the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of two years prescribed in the said sub-section. The limitation laid down in sub-s. (3) of S. 31 of the Act expired on 10th October 1977, and therefore, there was no jurisdiction in the Prescribed Authority to issue the fresh notice on 13th March, 1980. It should be seen that the clear case law of this Court, as reported in Ram Lal v. State, (1978 All L J 1197) which was affirmed by the Division Bench in Kishan Kumar v. State of U.P., (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1977 decided on 21.9.1979), is that the scheme underlying S. 38-B of the parent Act read with the transitory provision contained in S. 31 of the U. P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976, is that the earlier ceiling proceedings should be subsequently reopened only when the subsequent amendments in the law necessitated that a fresh determination of the surplus land should take place, and what really follows from this premises is that the finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings shall operate as res judicata in the subsequent ceiling proceedings unless due to the subsequent amendment in the Ceiling Law, a fresh finding is called for. These aspects of the matter, of course need not be gone into in the instant three writ petitions because, the very jurisdiction to issue fresh notice under S. 10(2) of the Act, stood barred on the ground of limitation as laid down in the sub-s. (3) of section 31 of the U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. These aspects of the matter, of course need not be gone into in the instant three writ petitions because, the very jurisdiction to issue fresh notice under S. 10(2) of the Act, stood barred on the ground of limitation as laid down in the sub-s. (3) of section 31 of the U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. In this view of the matter, I hereby allow all the three petitions and quash the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 13-6-1980 (Annexure 12) and the impugned notice dated 31-3-80 (Annexure 10) in each of the three writ petitions. There will be no orders as to costs.