ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition ,irises out of the proceedings under the I. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts. in brief. are as under: 2. The petitioner No. 7 Smt. Ram Dulari was treated as the tenure-holder and the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued to her in that capacity. Objections were filed by the said tenure-holder and also by her daughters. These objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 15-6-76, a true copy of which is annexure l to the petition. One of the objections was that certain lands which were alleged to have been gifted by the said tenure holder in favour of her daughters and a daughter's sons, were wrongly included in the holding of the said tenure-holder, namely Smt. Ram Dulari. It was contended that the document of gift was there and further that mutations had been done in respect of the said transactions and that the donees were in separate possession of the gifted lands. The Prescribed Authority rejected the alleged transactions of gift and passed the aforementioned order dated 15-6-76 (annexure 1). Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed against the said order of the Prescribed Authority and the same was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 7-10-76, a true copy whereof is annexure 2 to the petition. From the appellate court's judgment it is obvious that all the seven petitioners before me were appellants in the appeal before the lower appellate court. The controversy regarding the gift deeds dated 16th Oct. 1970 was considered in great detail by the appellate court and it was held that the said gift deeds were rightly ignored by the Prescribed Authority and that the said tenure-holder Snit. Ram Dulari was rightly treated to be the tenure-holder of the lands which were allegedly gifted by her to her daughters and to the sons of one of her daughters. Thereafter a writ petition was filed in this court against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court, dated 7th Oct. 1976. This court by its judgment dated 11-12-1977 dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter a writ petition was filed in this court against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court, dated 7th Oct. 1976. This court by its judgment dated 11-12-1977 dismissed the said writ petition. A true copy of the said judgment is annexure 3 to the petition and again from the same I find that all the present seven petitioners before me were the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition No. 210 of 1977, which had been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on 12.7.1977 (annexure 3). The learned Judge while deciding the said writ petition had observed as follows : "The finding of the III Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in effect is that the gift deed relied upon by the petitioners was a sham transaction and that it had never been acted upon. In the circumstances, the authorities under the Ceiling Act were justified in ignoring the gift deed while computing the surplus area of the petitioners. There is no force in this petition. Rejected." 3. A Special Appeal thereafter was filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in a said writ petition but the Special Appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. The order passed by the Division Bench holding the Special Appeal to be not maintainable is annexure 4 to the petition. 4. Thereafter is seems that the Prescribed Authority was again approached by the petitioners seeking to raise the same controversy regarding the alleged gift by the tenure-holder in favour of her daughters and the sons of one of her daughters and further contending that a fresh notice under S. 10(2) of the Act should be issued to them. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30-9-77. A true copy of the said order is annexure 5 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioners against the said order dated 30-9-77, but the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 10-7-80. A true copy of the said judgment is annexure 6 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition. the learned Standing Counsel has also made his submissions. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition. the learned Standing Counsel has also made his submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the Authority of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shantanu Kumar v State of U.P., (1979 All W C 585) : (1979 All L J 1174) the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction because no notices were issued to the transferees, who stood recorded on 8-6-1973. Learned counsel contended that even if appearance was put in on behalf of the donees before the Prescribed Authority in the Ceiling proceedings against the tenure-holder and they had filed objections before the Prescribed Authority in the said proceedings, still, the proceedings against them must be held to be void and without jurisdiction because no notices were issued as required by the proviso to rule 8 of the rules framed under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted. It is obvious that the aim of issuing the notice to the persons mentioned in the first proviso to rule 8 is to give an opportunity to such persons to contest the claim of the State that certain lands are merely ostensibly recorded in their names and that they are not the real tenure holders of such lands. However, when such persons who are claimed to be merely ostensibly recorded and whose lands are sought to be included in the holding of the tenure-holder, themselves filed objections before the Prescribed Authority in the proceedings taken against the tenure-holder. then the legislative aim is fully fulfilled, namely, that such allegedly ostensibly recorded persons should get a fair opportunity to contest the claim of the State in this regard. It should be seen that in the aforesaid Full Bench decision the case was not decided with reference to a person who might have been found to have filed the objections in the ceiling proceedings. The Full Bench decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on the said ground. In the facts of the instant case, as I have stated above, all the petitioners were before the Prescribed Authority with their objections. The Full Bench decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on the said ground. In the facts of the instant case, as I have stated above, all the petitioners were before the Prescribed Authority with their objections. Thereafter all these petitioners went up in appeal and pressed their contention before the appellate court and thereafter they came up in a writ petition to this court which too was dismissed. In such circumstances, it was not open to the petitioners to seek to have a second innings by moving their fresh objection which was clearly not maintainable and was rightly dismissed. The appeal against the said order was also rightly dismissed. The earlier adjudication will clearly bar the application which was rejected by the order dated 30-9-77 on the principle of res judicata. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to advert to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier adjudication only the point of view of the tenure-holder Smt. Ram Dulari was considered and not the point of view of the alleged transferees. After the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 12-7-1977, passed in the aforesaid earlier writ petition No. 210 of 1977, holding that the gift deed was a sham transaction, it is not open to me to go into the said controversy. 6. Accordingly, I dismiss this petition. However, I wish to make it clear that the appellate court's judgment dated 7-10-1976 remanding the case to the learned Prescribed Authority with certain directions should be treated as effective and be given effect to by the Prescribed Authority. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.