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 notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the tenure-holder named as Surendrapal Singh. The said tenure-holder filed an objection contending that no land in his holding was liable to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority decided the said objections after recording the evidence tendered on behalf of the tenure holder. It seems that in support of his objection. the tenure-holder Surendrapal Singh examined himself and also his witness Ajit Singh, and on behalf of the State the Lekhpal was examined in the witness-box and some documentary evidence in the shape of extract of Khasra was also tendered in evidence. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 6-2-1975 decided the objections of the tenure-holder and declared 22.57'acres of land as surplus. A certified copy of the said order dated 6-2-1975 is on the record and has been marked as Annexure 1 to the petition. It seems that th'reafter an appeal was filed by the tenure-holder and the same was dismissed on 3-9-1975. A true copy of the said appellate judgment has not been appended to the petition, but it is clear from the record that such an appeal was filed by the--said tenure-holder and the same was dismissed on the aforesaid date, namely, on 3-9-1975. It has been stated in the impugned orders that after the said appeal was dismissed, the possession of the surplus land was taken and compensation was paid to the said tenure holder and other subsequent proceedings visualised under the Ceiling Act have also been taken. On 18-8-1979 an application was moved on behalf of the present petitioner before the Prescribed Authority contending that he was the real person, namely, Surendrapal Singh and that somebody had impersonated on his behalf in the earlier proceedings and that in reality he had not filed any objection and, in fact, no notice under S. 10 (2) was served upon him and he had not appointed any counsel in the ceiling proceedings and had not filed any appeal before the appellate court. He, therefore, prayed that the Prescribed Authority should set aside the earlier order dated 6-2-1975 which was alleged to have been passed by the said authority ex parte. An affidavit was filed in support of the said application. He, therefore, prayed that the Prescribed Authority should set aside the earlier order dated 6-2-1975 which was alleged to have been passed by the said authority ex parte. An affidavit was filed in support of the said application. A true copy of the said application dated 18-8-1979 is Annexure A2 and a copy of the affidavit in support of the application is Annexure A3 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority by his impugned order dated 4-10-1979 rejected the said application. The Prescribed Authority disbelieved the version given by the petitioner, and, therefore, rejected the said application. A certified copy of the Prescribed Authority's order dated 4-10-1979 rejecting the said application is on the record, and a true copy of the same is Annexure A4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 9-4- 1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure A5 to the writ 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 writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the affidavit of the petitioner should not have been disbelieved as it was uncontroverted. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted within the narrow ambit of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Prescribed Authority has given his detailed reasons why in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners version was not accepted by him. It was not for, this court to reappraise the evidence on the record in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. If in the facts and circumstances of a case, a court feels that the version of a party as contained in the affidavit should not be relied upon or accepted, then this Court in its writ jurisdiction will not hold such an order to be without jurisdiction. As I have stated above, the Prescribed Authority has given his reasons for not accepting the version of the petitioner. It should be seen that apart from filing his own affidavit, no other evidence was led by the petitioner in support of his contention. As I have stated above, the Prescribed Authority has given his reasons for not accepting the version of the petitioner. It should be seen that apart from filing his own affidavit, no other evidence was led by the petitioner in support of his contention. In such circumstances, I do not think that the impugned orders can be said to be jurisdiction ally erroneous. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an oral request was made to the Prescribed Authority to make a comparison of the signature of the petitioner with that on the record of the earlier ceiling proceedings. There is no such allegation of any such request either in the order of the Prescribed Authority or in the judgment of the appellate court, and I do not think that the learned counsel for the petitioner is entitled to raise the said contention. Even apart from that, I am not sitting as appellate court in this jurisdiction. In this connection a reference may be made to Bahhutmal Rai Chand Oswal v. Laxmibai Rai R. Tarte, (AIR 1915 S C 1297). 6. This petition fails and is dismissed but there will he no order as to costs.