ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2 . The facts, in brief, are these : The petitioners Hari Shanker Singh and Kamal Bhan Singh are the sons of Kalyan Singh. The relevant pedigree is as follows :- 3. The petitioners were treated as co-tenure-holders and the notice under S. 10 (2) of the said Act was issued to them. They filed their objections. The objections. were filed by several other persons also including respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Smt. Kunt Kali and Smt. Brij Kali, daughters of Chandrabali Singh, who as the pedigree above (below) will show, was the real uncle of the petitioners. In other words, Smt. Kunt Kali and Smt. Brij Kali are the cousin sisters of the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 22-11-1976 rejected the objections of the petitioners as well as those of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. However, on appeal by the petitioners the appellate Court set aside the Prescribed Authority's order dated 22-11-1976 and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority decided the case afresh by his order dated 24-2-1979, a true copy of which is annex. 1 to the petition. Several appeals were filed against the said order before the District Judge, Allahabad, who transferred the same for disposal to the IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad. The appeal filed by the petitioners was numbered as Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 336 of 1979 and the same was decided by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 16-7-1979, a true copy of which is annex. 2 to the petition. An additional issue was framed by the appellate Court in these-words:- "Whether the entire land in question as alleged by the appellants is unireigated within the contemplation of S. 4-A of the Act ? If so, its effect ?" 4. The said issue was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for its finding. The appeal filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Smt. Kunt Kali and Smt. Brij Kali was numbered as Revenue Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1979 and the same was decided by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 6-8-1979,, a true copy of which is annex. 4 to the petition. The appeal filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Smt. Kunt Kali and Smt. Brij Kali was numbered as Revenue Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1979 and the same was decided by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 6-8-1979,, a true copy of which is annex. 4 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on record. 5. In Para 15 of the writ petition, it is stated as under : "15. That it is pertinent to mention that the respondent No. 1 also allowed the appeal of Ram Swarup and others, being appeal No. 238 of 1979, by his judgment dated 31-5-1979 and held them to be Sirdars of the plots as alleged by them. It is further alleged that the appeal filed by Mukteshwar Singh and others, who were transferees of the petitioners, is still pending and has not been decided so far." 6. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the appellate authority dated 6-8-1979 allowing the aforesaid revenue ceiling appeal No. 255 of 1979, filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Smt. Kunt Kali and Smt. Brij Kali, the petitioners Hari Shanker Singh and his brother Kamal Singh have come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri A. C. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition, I have heard Sri H. P. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It may be stated here that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 claimed co-tenancy rights in the land in dispute along with the petitioners. They based their claim on the basis of the pedigree, which has been set out above. The petitioners, however, disputed the claim of the said ladies and claimed to be exclusive co-tenure-holders of the land in dispute. In allowing the appeal by the aforesaid judgment dated 6-8-1979 the appellate Court directed as follows : - "The Prescribed Authority, Maiza should now proceed according to law treating Smt. Kunt Kali and Smt. Brij Kali as co-tenants having share together in the holdings in question with tenure-holders Hari Shanker Singh and Kamal Singh." Sri Dutta raised the following points : (i) All the appeals against the Prescribed Authority's order dated 24-2-1979 should have been heard together and decided by one common judgment. (ii) As long as consolidation proceedings were pending in the village, ceiling authorities did not have any jurisdiction to continue their ceiling proceedings. They should have stayed the ceiling proceedings. (iii) Prior to the instant ceiling proceedings in question, earlier ceiling proceedings had taken place in the case of the petitioners and no objections were filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the said earlier ceiling proceedings claiming co-tenancy right. Therefore, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were debarred from claiming such rights in the subsequent ceiling proceedings on the general principle of res judicata. In this connection reference was made to S. 38-B of the said Act and some of the decided cases thereunder. Further, in the said ceiling proceedings the petitioners had filed separate but identical objections under S. 14 (3) as it stood before the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973) that the certain sale deeds executed before 20-8-1959 were not taken into consideration in the order passed under S. 10 (2) and it was claimed that the land sold through such deeds should have been excluded from the total area held by the said tenure-holders on the relevant date. The said objections under S. 14 (3) were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 29-9-65, a true copy of which is annex. 6 to the petition. Inter alia, in the said order it was observed as follows : "So far as the lands under the sale deeds are concerned, he wants exemption for those sold to Brij Kali, Kunt Kali, Shambhoo Nath, Ramdhari and others." From this quotation it seems that the sale deeds had been executed by the petitioners before 20-8-59 in favour of various persons including respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are now claiming co-tenancy right in the land in question. (iv) In view of the verdict of the appellate Court in the impugned judgment dated 6-8-1979 (annex. 4), neither the petitioners held any surplus land nor the two lady respondents, namely respondents Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, the ceiling authorities did not have jurisdiction in the matter because their jurisdiction is dependent upon the tenure-holder being in possession of the surplus land. When a tenure-holder is not possessed of any surplus land, the ceiling authorities do not have any jurisdiction to deal with the land of such a tenure-holder. 2 and 3, therefore, the ceiling authorities did not have jurisdiction in the matter because their jurisdiction is dependent upon the tenure-holder being in possession of the surplus land. When a tenure-holder is not possessed of any surplus land, the ceiling authorities do not have any jurisdiction to deal with the land of such a tenure-holder. (v) The land in question was ancestral Sir and Khudkasht before the date of vesting, namely July 1, 1952, and it was governed by the personal law of the parties and not by the rule of succession laid down in S. 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. In this connection a reference was made to S. 9 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Sri Dutta drew my attention to ground No. 8 in the memorandum of appeal regarding revenue ceiling appeal No. 255 of 1979. The said ground reads as under : "Yaha ki applarthi ke pita tatha pritivadi gan ke pita mauza uprokt ke Zamindar the aur uprokt samast Bhumi unki Sir Khudkasht Bhumi hai jisme ham log ka tatha pritivadi gan ka brabar hissa hai." My attention was also invited to para 11 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of petitioner No. 1, Hari Shanker Singh, which reads as under : "That all the land of the petitioners are ancestral lands." (vi) The impugned judgment was attacked on the ground that it was based on a misreading of the statement of Smt. Brij Kali, a true copy of which is annex. C. A. 1 to her counter affidavit. (vii) As the petitioners stood recorded in 1359 F over the land in dispute and the two ladies were not recorded over such land, therefore, the burden to prove co-tenancy rights in such land was upon them. They also had the burden of proof to prove that their father Chandra Bali Singh was alive on the date of vesting (July 1, 1952) and that when their father died they were unmarried. It was contended that the ladies failed to discharge the said burden. (viii) The impugned judgment of the appellate court was based on irrelevant consideration. The appellate court held that the two ladies were normally residing in village Derhan. From this fact, it was concluded by the said court that the ladies were in possession of the land in dispute. It was contended that the ladies failed to discharge the said burden. (viii) The impugned judgment of the appellate court was based on irrelevant consideration. The appellate court held that the two ladies were normally residing in village Derhan. From this fact, it was concluded by the said court that the ladies were in possession of the land in dispute. This inference about possession was wholly speculative and based on irrelevant circumstance namely, residence in the village. (ix) It was next contended that Akar Patra 4-(a) of Consolidation of Holdings Act was inadmissible in evidence and the appellate Court was wrong in placing reliance on the same for coming to the conclusion that the two ladies had half share in the land in dispute. Further, the said documents was not a final document of title and was only tentative. 7. Sri. H.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contested the correctness of the aforesaid submissions. He contended that the petitioners had introduced new facts in the petition which were never pressed before the authorities below. He contended that there was no document to prove that the land in question was formerly Sir and Khudkasht. According to the learned counsel the relevant revenue records would have shown that the land was formerly occupancy tenancy land. Sri Dubey emphasised that there was nothing to show that the land was ancestral in the hands of the three sons of Dunia Singh. There was nothing to show that there was any joint family and even if there was joint family it was not shown that the property was joint family property. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following cases : 1. AIR 1969 SC 1076 (Head Note C) Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Revgonda Sankh. 2. AIR 1947 PC 189 Appalaswami v. Suryanarayan Muni. 3. AIR 1956 Nag 231 Bhimabai v. Dattatraya Babuji Peche. 4. AIR 1935 All 67 Suraj Kumar v. Jagannath. 5. 1934 Allahabad 710 (Sic) Sardar Singh v. Emperor. 8. Sri Dubey referred to original S. 171 of the Zaindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and referred to its change with effect from 10th Oct., 1954 by the amendment effected by the U.P. Land Laws .(Amendment) Act No. 20 of 1954. Sri Dutta placed reliance on the following case law: 1. (1977) 3 ALR 250 Chetanya Raj Singh v. II Addl. Civil Judge. 2. Sri Dutta placed reliance on the following case law: 1. (1977) 3 ALR 250 Chetanya Raj Singh v. II Addl. Civil Judge. 2. 1979 RD (Summary) 53 : 1979 All LJ 276 Jaswant Kumar v. State. 3. 1980 RD (Summary) 14 : 1979 All LJ 996 Vijay Bahadur Singh v. Civil Judge. 4. AIR 1974 SC 1069 , Katikera Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu. 5. AIR 1965 SC 338 Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyanger. 6. (1978) 4 ALR 809 : 1978 All LJ 1197 Ram Lal v. State. 7. 1979 RD (Summary) 9 : 1978 All LJ 1197 Ram Lal v. State of U.P.. 8. 1980 RD (Summary) 21 : 1979 All LJ 1023 Prabhu Nath Singh v. Smt. Manik Raji Debi. 9. AIR 1970 SC 343 Smt. Sitabai v. Ram Chandra. 10. AIR 1975 All 458 Mst. Kashmira v. Deputy Director Consolidation. 11. AIR 1975 Delhi 175, Chandra Kishore v. Nanak Chand. 12. AIR 1969 SC 1076 (para 5) Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Revgouda Sankh. 13. (1907) ILR 31 Bom 33 Bhimrao Ramrao Desai v. Ayyappa Vellappa. 14. Mulla's Hindu Law Article 229 to 235(7). 9. I have noticed in detail the various contentions raised at the Bar and the copious case law to which a reference has been made. However, it has seemed to me that I should not express any opinion regarding the me-its of rival claim to title of the land in dispute. This is a task which obviously is to be done by the authorities on the basis of the evidence on the record. It has seemed to me that Sri Dutta is right in attacking the impugned judgment of the appellate Court on the ground that the same is vitiated in law due to misreading of the evidence on the record and due to the same being based on irrelevant considerations. The appellate Court observed in the impugned judgment as follows : "It cannot be disputed that Chandra Bali Singh was very much alive in 1356 F. The statement of applicant Smt. Brij Kali was recorded by the Prescribed Authority in 1976 and there she had stated that her father had died about 24 years ago." In Annex. C. A. 1 to the counter affidavit of Smt. Brij Kali, her statement in the witness-box was reproduced. She stated in the same that her father had died 25 years back. C. A. 1 to the counter affidavit of Smt. Brij Kali, her statement in the witness-box was reproduced. She stated in the same that her father had died 25 years back. The appellate Court was wrong in thinking that she had stated that her father died 24 years back. It is obvious that on a correct reading of the said statement, Smt. Brij Kali was asserting on 1st Oct., 1976 (when the said statement was recorded) that her father Chandra Bali Singh had died 25 years back which meant that he died before 1st July, 1952 i.e. prior to the date of vesting. In this view of the matter the appellate Court's finding contained in these words, "In view of the oral and documentary evidence I feel absolutely no hesitation in holding that Chandra Bali Singh must have died some time after coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act". is speculative and based on no evidence and material whatsoever. 10. It should be seen that a very heavy reliance was placed by the appellate Court on Akar patra 4-(a) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It should be seen that this form is wholly tentative and it could not be given the status of any adjudication in the consolidation proceedings. Indeed, it seems to be the own case of the contesting respondents that their objection under S. 9 pending before the Consolidation Officer vide para 7 of the counter affidavit of Smt. Brij Kali. In this view of the matter, the appellate Court was wrong in law in treating Akar Patra 4 (a) as evidence establishing title of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It should further be seen that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ram Charan v. State, 1978 All WC 677 : 1979 All LJ 166, the adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities, even if any, made after 8-6-1973, was to be of no effect on the adjudication of title in the ceiling proceedings. I also agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mere residence of the two ladies in the village in question did not lead to a necessary inference that the land in dispute must have been in the possession of the said ladies. I also agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mere residence of the two ladies in the village in question did not lead to a necessary inference that the land in dispute must have been in the possession of the said ladies. The findings of possession o the ladies can also be said to be based on irrelevant consideration. 11. It is, therefore, clear to me that the impugned appellate judgment is speculative and the findings are based on no evidence or on inadmissible material and as such it is fit to be quashed in this petition. Even though I have decided not to say anything regarding the merits of the various other contentions raised by the learned counsel at the Bar, I am bound to reject the contention of Sri Dutta so far as his aforesaid contention No. (ii) is concerned. His point that the ceiling proceedings must await the finalisation of the consolidation proceedings is directly contrary to the law laid down by the 5-Judge Full Bench of this Court in Ram Charan v. State, 1979 All LJ 166 (supra). 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment of the appellate Court Annex. 4 is hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the appellate Court with a direction that the appeal shall be decided afresh in accordance with the law. If the appellate Court feels that in the circumstances of the case, the parties should be allowed to lead fresh evidence then it may allow such fresh evidence to be led in the appeal itself or it may pass a proper remand order remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority with necessary direction. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.