ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief are these. The petitioners claimed that they purchased some land from one Smt. Suraj Pal Kunwar, widow of Babu Prachan Vir Singh by a registered sale deed dated 9-11-1971. They claimed that they obtained possession on the basis of the sale deed. They have further claimed that their names stood recorded in the revenue records on 8-6-1973 when the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972, (U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973), came into force. It is further stated in the petition that the said Smt. Surajpal Kunwar died in March 1972, and after her death three heirs succeeded to her estate. The three heirs are Onkar Singh, Raujai Singh and Inderdeo Singh. Inderdeo Singh is opposite party 4 in the present petition. It seems that separate notices under section 10 (2) of the Act were issued to each of the said three persons and three ceiling cases in respect of the said three persons came into existence. It has been alleged in the petition that the land, which was purchased by the petitioners, was included in the said ceiling cases against the said three persons and this was done presumably on the basis that the aforesaid sale deed dated 9-11-1971 executed by that predecessor-in-interest of the said three persons was ignored. The petitioners contend that in the ceiling case against the opposite party 4 Inderdeo Singh, they filed an objection claiming that on account of the aforesaid purchase, they were the real tenure- holders of the land which had been purchased by them from the aforesaid lady and that the same could not be included in the holdings of the three heirs of the said lady. It is stated that the prescribed authority by his order dated 29-9-1975 rejected the objections of the petitioners. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the petition. The prescribed authority rejected the objections on the ground that the objections had been filed beyond the limitation mentioned in S. 14 (3) of the Act as it then stood on 29th Sep. 1975 when the aforesaid order (Annexure 4) was passed. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the petition. The prescribed authority rejected the objections on the ground that the objections had been filed beyond the limitation mentioned in S. 14 (3) of the Act as it then stood on 29th Sep. 1975 when the aforesaid order (Annexure 4) was passed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal against the said order but the same was declared to stand abated by the appellate court by its judgment dated 8-3-1977, a true copy whereof is Ann. 5 to the petition. The said abatement was held to have been brought about in view of the transitory provision contained in S. 31, U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976, (U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976). 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Kamleshwar Nath Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, the Learned Standing counsel has made his submission. 4. It is not necessary to advert to the controversy as to whether the objection filed by the petitioners was or was not time barred under section 14 (3) of the Act as it stood before its amendment by the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 with retrospective effect from 10-10-1975. It should be seen that irrespective of that aspect of the matter, the first proviso to R. 8 of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Act, was clearly breached in this case. The said proviso clearly lays down : "That where the statement in C. L. H. Form 3 also includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon such other person a notice in C. L. H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C. L. H. Form 3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of 15 days from the date of service of the notice why the aforesaid statement he not taken as correct." 5. It has not been disputed that on 8-6-1973 the petitioners had their names recorded on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed in their favour and therefore, it was a case where the State was contending that the land was ostensibly held by the purchasers but that the real tenure-holders were the three heirs of the aforesaid lady Smt. Surajpal Kunwar. On the basis of the said contention the land sold in favour of the petitioners was included in the statement which was prepared in C. L. H. Form 3 in the cases of the said three heirs of the said lady. Therefore, it was obligatory that a notice should have been given to that petitioners to enable them to contest the claim of the State that the land was merely ,ostensibly held by the petitioners. Admittedly, no such notice was given as (required by the said proviso to Rule 8. 6. I have held in several decisions that where the persons, who are claimed by the State to hold the land ostensibly, themselves put in appearance before the prescribed authority then it is not necessary that a notice under the said proviso to R. 8 should be again issued to them, because the purpose of the proviso is to enable such persons to contest the claim of the State that they are merely ostensible tenure-holders and not real ones. However, both the prescribed authority and the appellate court denied the petitioners' right to have their objections decided on merits and rejected the claim of the petitioners to have their objections considered on merit and decided the objections by considering only S. 14 of the Act and changes which were brought about in the said section by the Amending Act. None of the said authorities took into consideration the said first proviso to R. 8 of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Law. It should be seen that in view of the Full Bench Decision in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U. P. 1979 All W C585):(1979 All LJ 1174), it has been clearly laid down that the said proviso to R. 8 lays down a mandatory provision of law and if there is no compliance with the same, then the proceedings would not be good in law. 7. In this view of the matter, I allow the petition and quash the order of the prescribed authority dated 29-9-1975 (Annex. 7. In this view of the matter, I allow the petition and quash the order of the prescribed authority dated 29-9-1975 (Annex. 4) and the judgment of the appellate court dated 8-3-1977 (Ann. 5). The case is remanded to the prescribed authority with a direction that the claim of the petitioners to be the tenure- holder of certain land which has been included in the holding of the opposite party 4. Inderdeo in the C. L. H. Form 3, which has been prepared in the case of the said tenure-holders, shall be considered on merits after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective stands and after considering such evidence and material on record, the surplus land of Inderdeo Singh shall be redetermined after such adjudication. In the circumstances, there will be no orders as to costs.