JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - In its objection filed under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the petitioner claimed that some of the plots were grove and un-irrigated. It was also claimed that he was entitled to two additional hectares as his family consisted of more than five persons. Both contentions were repelled. In respect of latter claim it was held that petitioner had two wives and as the definition of family given in the Act contemplates only one wife the other wife could not be considered to be member of petitioner's family. The order was maintained in appeal. Against these orders petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3097 of 1977 which was allowed on 2-1-1979 and a direction was issued to appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. It was held that the question of irrigated and un-irrigated nature of land was decided without application of mind. On the question whether two wives could be considered to be members of tenures-holder's family it was held that if marriage took place before commencement of Hindu Marriage Act then second wife could be treated to be member of petitioner's family. 2. In pursuance of direction issued by this Court the appellate authority framed three questions one whether 19 plots were irrigated or un-irrigated, second whether plots Nos. 2933, 2947 and 896 formed part of petitioner's holding and the third whether petitioner had two wives since before the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On the first question the appellate authority held that petitioner had confined his claim to four plots only and as the prescribed authority had not decided the objection as required under Section 4-A he may do it again. He, however, added a rider that redetermination shall be done if the four plots have been allotted to petitioner. In case they formed part of surplus area the redetermination shall not be necessary. Similar direction has been issued in respect of plots covered by the second point. The prescribed authority has also been directed to find out if the plots ceased to be land under the Act as they were used for brick kiln. As regards the last question the appellate authority held that the marriage took place after 1956. Similar direction has been issued in respect of plots covered by the second point. The prescribed authority has also been directed to find out if the plots ceased to be land under the Act as they were used for brick kiln. As regards the last question the appellate authority held that the marriage took place after 1956. In view of these findings the prescribed authority was directed to redetermine character and nature of seven plots only subject to the observations made by him. 3. Against rejection of petitioner's claim for fifteen plots, issuing of direction to prescribed authority to redetermine the nature of plots only if the land had been allotted to petitioner and it has not been declared surplus and the finding that second wife could not be treated to be member of family the petitioner has again approached this court. 4. Taking up the last question first it shall be seen that the finding that petitioner's second marriage took place after 1956 is vitiated as the appellate authority did not examine the affidavit of the wife, filed in support of petitioner's claim that she was married in 1952, and the oral evidence led by petitioner. The claim was decided on entry in Kutumb register only which is a record of family members. It could not establish the year of marriage. Further there can be no doubt that the affidavit of wife and oral evidence was relevant material and the appellate authority in ignoring it and recording the finding that the petitioner did not lead any evidence committed manifest error of law. This finding could result in direction to appellate or prescribed authority to redetermine the matter but after hearing learned counsel for parties it does not appear necessary to issue any direction and the controversy can be decided without going into this question of fact. In the objection filed the petitioner had claimed that he had two wives. To prove it he led oral evidence and his case was supported by the Lekhpal and Pradhan also. The State did not contest the factum that petitioner had two wives. The only dispute raised by it was that in view of the definition only one wife could be considered to be the member of tenure-holder's family. To prove it he led oral evidence and his case was supported by the Lekhpal and Pradhan also. The State did not contest the factum that petitioner had two wives. The only dispute raised by it was that in view of the definition only one wife could be considered to be the member of tenure-holder's family. Even the issue framed by prescribed authority was whether the objector had two wives if so whether, two hectares of irrigated land could be given to him. He found that the existence of second wife was proved by Kutumb register, copy of electoral roll of village, certificate granted by Pradhan and the two witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner. He found it a fact that petitioner had two wives but he refused to grant benefit in view of the interpretation put by him on Section 3 (7) of the Act. This finding was not challenged by State nor it raised the controversy that in view of Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 Smt. Ramnayani Devi could not be deemed to be legally wedded wife. The finding therefore became final. In appeal only the order was maintained on construction of Section 3 (7). When the matter came to this Court it was held that in view of decision in Phool Chand v. State, 1978 All LR 198 : (AIR 1978 NOC 143) (All) that the word wife in Section 3 (7) means and includes wives, the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit. But the appellate authority appears to have recorded the finding on the date of marriage due to the observations noted below. "There is no finding by any of the two authorities that the marriage took place after the enforcement of the Act. In absence of such finding that wives could not be excluded from the definition of family." This was done under misapprehension. There being no controversy that petitioner had two wives and they were legally married it could not he subject-matter of examination. The observation made by this court would not be construed as a direction to decide the date of second marriage. It appears to have been made to demonstrate the error apparent in the order of appellate authority. There is substance in learned counsel's submission, that for two additional hectares the petitioner loses his wife and the children born from her become illegitimate. It appears to have been made to demonstrate the error apparent in the order of appellate authority. There is substance in learned counsel's submission, that for two additional hectares the petitioner loses his wife and the children born from her become illegitimate. In view of finding recorded by Additional District Judge petitioner has been put in worst position than what he would have been if he had not challenged earlier appellate order in this court and sought two additional hectares of land. 5. It does not appear that petitioner conceded its claim in respect of 15 plots. At least there is no recital in the application dated 11-12-1979 on which reliance was placed by appellate authority. As regards remaining plots the direction of appellate authority to prescribed authority not to redetermine their nature in case they have been declared surplus is not easy to appreciate. The declaration of surplus is a part of the process in determination of ceiling area. It does not attain finality so long the proceedings are going on in the appeal or are pending in this Court. Moreover once direction was issued by this Court to redetermine character of land it could not be set at naught by such direction as has been issued by appellate authority. 6. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Additional District Judge is quashed in part. The finding on point No. 3 is set aside. The prescribed Authority is directed to decide the objection afresh in respect of the nature of the 19 plots referred under point No. 1 of the appellate authority and the three plots in point No. 2. He shall also consider the effect of reduction of area in consolidation proceedings. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.