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 Gaya Prasad Singh was issued notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter, no appeal was filed against the decision of the Prescribed Authority. However, subsequently, an application under S. 13-A of the Act was moved and the said application was partly allowed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 16-6-1980. A true copy of the said order partly allowing the application under S. 13-A is Annexure 2 to the petition. The surplus land was reduced to the extent of 4 Biswas 9 Biswansis and this reduction in the surplus land was effected in plot No. 2353. Thereafter, no appeal was filed by the State against the said order but, the tenure-holder, who is the petitioner before me, filed his appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 20-11-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come, up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri C. B. Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble K. N. Seth, J. reported in Pratap Singh v. District Judge, Banda (1978 All W C 671 (1)). In the said reported decision it was laid down that the appellate court would not be justified in holding an appeal to be not maintainable against an order passed under S. 13A of the Act. In the instant case, it should be seen that the appellate court has not held that the appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was held to be maintainable by the tenure-holder but it was held that the application under S. 13A of the Act was not maintainable and the Prescribed Authority was not right in treating the same to be maintainable. The appeal was held to be maintainable by the tenure-holder but it was held that the application under S. 13A of the Act was not maintainable and the Prescribed Authority was not right in treating the same to be maintainable. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that this course was not open to the appellate court and according to him once an application has been held to be maintainable by the Prescribed Authority then, unless the State questions such an order by filing an appeal, it is not open to the State as respondent to raise such a contention in an appeal which is filed by the tenure-holder. It is this aspect of the matter which needs serious consideration. I have not come across any provision of law which estops or debars the State from contending that an application under S. 13A of the Act was wrongly held to be maintainable by the Prescribed Authority and the mere fact that no appeal was filed by the State against the said order cannot in law, amount to any kind of estoppel or acquiescence in the correctness of such an order. The only result of the State not filing an appeal against such an order will be that the State will not be allowed as respondent in an appeal to seek the setting aside of such an order. In other words, in an appeal filed by the tenure-holder, even if the appellate court is of the view that the application under S. 13A was not maintainable, still, in the absence of an appeal by the State against such an order, the State will not be allowed to seek the setting aside of such an order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The order will stand and will not be interfered with because the State did not file an appeal against the same and only the tenure-holder filed the appeal. However, as I have stated above, there is nothing in law to prevent the State as respondent from contending that the application under S. 13A was not maintainable in law and was wrongly allowed by the Prescribed Authority. However, as I have stated above, there is nothing in law to prevent the State as respondent from contending that the application under S. 13A was not maintainable in law and was wrongly allowed by the Prescribed Authority. If such a contention is raised and is accepted by the appellate court, then the only course, which the appellate court will follow, would he that the appeal would be dismissed but there will be no interference with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority because the State did not choose to file an appeal. In the instant case, I find that this is what has happened; the appellate court held that the application under S. 13A of the Act was not maintainable and yet the said court did not set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court only dismissed the appeal of the tenure-holder. 5. The learned counsel next contended that the merits of the controversy should have been examined. In my view, it was nut necessary for the appellate court to go into the controversy as to which plot should have been treated as irrigated or unirrigated when it was held that the said controversy was not such as was to he decided in the proceedings under S. 13A of the Act. 6. This petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed but there will he no order as to costs.