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 was treated as the tenure-holder and successive ceiling proceedings took place against him. It seems that in such proceedings, it was held that the petitioner had no surplus land. In this connection a reference may be made to Annexure 2 which is a copy of the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petri. No. 3601 of 1977. The said petition was filed by the State against the judgment of the appellate-court in the case of the petitioner. However, the said petition was dismissed by this Court. It seems that subsequently a notice under S. 13-A of the Act dated 13-2-1980 was issued to the petitioner, a true copy whereof are Annexures 3-A and 3-B to the writ petition. Objections were filed to the said notice and a true copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter, the prescribed authority passed his order dated 31-7-1980 on the said application and true copy of the same is Annexure 5 to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 5-11-1980, a true copy whereof is on the record and the certified copy of the same is also on the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel contended that the mistake which was sought to be rectified, could not be described as a mistake apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, S. 13-A was not applicable. Learned counsel further contended that since the order of the prescribed authority had merged in the order of the appellate court and since the order of the appellate court itself was not interfered with by this Court in the afore said writ petition, therefore, it was not open to the prescribed authority to rectify the alleged mistake in his original order dated 19-10- 1974. In my view, it is not necessary to go into these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner because even if the said contentions are correct, it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It should be seen that the petitioner himself admitted that his family consisted of six members and there was one adult son. In this view of the matter., admittedly the tenure holder was entitled to 4 hectares of additional land only under S. 5(3) of the Act and not to 6 hectares of land as he was wrongly allowed in the ceiling proceedings. When this mistake was admittedly there on the basis of the tenure-1, holder's own statement, the order rectifying the mistake should not be interfered with in; this writ petition. Even if the contentions of Sri G. N. Verma, were held to be correct, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to interfere with such an order which is in; accordance with the own admission of the tenure-holder. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed but there will he no order as to costs.