JUDGMENT 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 claims to be the adopted son of the deceased Dharma who was treated as the tenure-holder in the ceiling proceedings. It seems that the notice under section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to the said Dharma and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30-1-1975, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the said Dharma and it is stated in the petition that during the pendency of the said appeal, Dharma died. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal by his judgment dated 21-1-77, a true copy of the said judgment is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 7864 of 1978 in this Court but it is stated that the same was rejected summarily on 13-9-1978 by a leaned Judge of this Court. No copy of the judgment in the Writ Petition has been annexed to the petition. It seems that thereafter a review petition was filed against the judgment passed in the writ petition, but no copy of the review petition has been appended to the writ petition. It is stated in para 9 of the petition that the review petition was also dismissed on 16-5-79. It is contended that in the consolidation proceedings only 23 Bigha 2 Biswa of land has been allotted to the petitioner and, there are, it is submitted that a direction be issued to the respondents nos. 1 and 2 that they should not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. It is contended that in view of the orders passed in the ceiling proceedings, there is no surplus land in the hands of the petitioner. It had seemed to me that this petition is not tenable. As long as the orders passed in the ceiling proceedings are not amended in due course of law, it is not open to a party to seek a mandamus from this Court directing the ceiling Authorities not to interfere with the tenure-holder's possession. It had seemed to me that this petition is not tenable. As long as the orders passed in the ceiling proceedings are not amended in due course of law, it is not open to a party to seek a mandamus from this Court directing the ceiling Authorities not to interfere with the tenure-holder's possession. It should be seen that the tenure-holder fought the matter upto the stage of a review application in this court against the judgment which was passed in the earlier writ petition but failed. In such circumstances, this petition cannot be entertained at this stage. 3. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.