ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - Raghuvansh Singh. Raghunath Singh, Om Bir Singh, Begraj Singh and Kiran Singh sons of Munshi Singh, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the prescribed Authority dated 17-4-1970 and 5-8-1978 and also the orders of the Additional District Judge dated 11-5-79. 2. Munshi Singh was recorded tenure holder of a number of plots. Notice under S. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was served on him along with a draft statement proposing to declare an area of 21 bighas I biswa and 11 biswansis as surplus land. Munshi Singh filed objections. He asserted that his family, consisted of more than five persons as he had six sons and one daughter and they were also co-tenure-holders in the plots in dispute. He further raised other objections on the ground that some of the plots were not irrigated and while other plots were Banjar and Usar. Munshi Singh further asserted that Inderjit Singh, one of his sons, had filed a suit under S. 229/ 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for declaration of his share in the plots in dispute, and since that suit was pending, proceedings under the Act should await decision of the revenue courts. The prescribed Authority rejected Munshi Singh's objection. It held that any decree in the suit filed by Inderjit Singh cannot be taken into account under S. 5 (7) of the Act-as it had been filed after 27-1-1974. The Prescribed Authority allowed 6 hectares of additional land to Munshi Singh in view of his major sons and by the order dated 6-1 1-1974 it declared an area of 21 bighas I Biswa and 11 biswansis as surplus land. Munshi Singh preferred appeal against that order. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 7-3-1975 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for giving opportunity to Mushi Singh to adduce evidence. After remand the Prescribed Authority gave opportunity to Munshi Singh to lead evidence and after local inspection the matter was decided again on 17-4-1976 but the Prescribed Authority declared the same area of 21 bighas 1 Biswa and 1 biswansis as surplus. After remand the Prescribed Authority gave opportunity to Munshi Singh to lead evidence and after local inspection the matter was decided again on 17-4-1976 but the Prescribed Authority declared the same area of 21 bighas 1 Biswa and 1 biswansis as surplus. Munshi Singh again filed appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-4-1976 but the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 21-10-1978 as barred by time. Possession of the surplus land was thereafter taken on 25-10-1976 and the same was, allotted to landless Harijans. 3. On 26-6-1978 the petitiones filed an objection before the Prescribed Authority purporting to be under S. 11 (2) read with S. 13-A of the Act for re-determining the surplus land. In their objection the petitioners asserted that in pursuance of an oral family settlement the petitioners were co-sharers and they have been continuing in possession in accordance with their respective shares. They were co- sharers of the respective shares. They were co-sharers of the land in dispute which has been declared surplus along with their father-Munshi Singh and yet no notice was given to them. They referred to the decree of the Board of Revenue dated 6- 10-1976, in which their shares had been declared. The petitioners asserted that they had no knowledge or notice of the earlier proceedings taken against their father and their land has been declared surplus without giving them any opportunity of hearing. They further asserted that the land in dispute was ancestral, and it was Sir and Khudkasht and the petitioners being sons of Munshi Singh, they were co-tenure-holders along with Munshi Singh. Along with their objection they filed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing the objection. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 5-8- 1978 dismissed the objection on the ground that the decree of the Board of Revenue could not be taken into account in view of S. 5 (7) of the Act and also on the ground that the possession of the surplus land had already been taken. The Prescribed Authority further held that the order dated 17-4-1976 declaring surplus land had become final and the petitioners being the sons of Munshi Singh had full knowledge of the proceedings. Munshi Singh had also filed a separate application more or less on the same allegations as made by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority further held that the order dated 17-4-1976 declaring surplus land had become final and the petitioners being the sons of Munshi Singh had full knowledge of the proceedings. Munshi Singh had also filed a separate application more or less on the same allegations as made by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority considered the objection of Munshi Singh also along with the petitioners' objection and rejected the same. The petitioners as well as Munshi Singh both filed two separate appeals against the order of the Prescribed Authority which were registered as Revenue Appeal No. 48 of 1979 and Revenue Appeal No. 39 of 1978. The Additional District Judge dismissed both the appeals by his order dated 11-5-1979. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of this petition for quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that as the petitioners were co- sharers, they were entitled to notice under R. 8 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules 1961. S. 10 (1) of the Act provides that where the tenure- holders failed to submit statement under S. 9 the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed indicating the land if any exempted under S. 6 and the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land Under S. 10 (2) of the Act a statement is required to be served upon every tenure-holder in such manner as may be prescribed. Rule 8 framed under the Act provides for service of notice on every tenure-holder to show cause within 15 days why the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority be not taken as correct. Rule 8 framed under the Act provides for service of notice on every tenure-holder to show cause within 15 days why the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority be not taken as correct. The proviso to the rule is as under : "Provided that where the statement in CLH 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 CLH form 4 together with a copy of the statement in CLH 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 be not taken as correct." The above provision makes it amply clear that the notice requiring the tenure-holder to show cause is to be issued to every tenure-holder, in respect of whose land the statement is prepared including the person in whose name the land may ostensibly be held. The statement in Form 3 is prepared on the basis of the revenue records, the proviso, however, indicates that if from the revenue records or other information the Prescribed Authority comes to know that the land included in the statement included the land ostensibly held by some person othe than the recorded tenure- holder the Prescribed Authority should serve notice to such person also. Failure to issue notice to a person in whose name the land is ostensibly held would vitiate the proceedings as service of notice is mandatory. This view has consistently been taken by this Court in M/s. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills v. Civil Judge Bijnor, 1969 All WR (HC) 285: ( AIR 1970 All 130 ) (FB) and Shantanu Kumar v. State. (1979 All WC 585) : (1979 All LJ 1174) (FB). These authorities have further held that the service of such a notice is a preliminary to acquisition of jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and to decide the matter whether the land ostensibly held in the name of the recorded tenure-holder should be declared as surplus land. 5. In the instant case, Munshi Singh was the only recorded tenant. Notice as contemplated by R. 8 was admittedly served on him. He appeared and contested the proceedinplated by R. 8 was admittedly land being ancestral Sir and Khudkasht his sons had also share in the same. 5. In the instant case, Munshi Singh was the only recorded tenant. Notice as contemplated by R. 8 was admittedly served on him. He appeared and contested the proceedinplated by R. 8 was admittedly land being ancestral Sir and Khudkasht his sons had also share in the same. The Prescribed Authority did not accept his contention. But no notice was ever served on the petitioners though the petitioners' father Munshi Singh contested the proceedings and failed. The petitioners were given no opportunity to contest the proceedings or to produce evidence in support of their contention. If the land in dispute was Sir and Khudkasht and if the petitioners were born before the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. they would be entitled to a share in the same and the land would ostensibly be held in their name. The decree of the Board of Revenue was ignored by the Prescribed Authority in view of section 5 (7) of the Act but the Prescribed Authority failed to consider as to whether the decree was passed on the basis of the land being Sir and Khudkasht or on any other basis. There is no discussion of this question either in the order of the Prescribed Authority or in the order of the Appellate Authority. In this Court the petitioners have filed Khatuni extracts as annexure to the rejoinder affidavit. On a perusal of the same I find that the plots were recorded as Sir and Khudkasht. The petitioners' contention is prima facie supported for by the extracts of Khatuni filed in this Court the years 1303 and 1343 Fasli showing that the land in dispute was Sir and Khudkasht. In the circumstances, the petitioners' claim required investigation. 6. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have not considered the petitioners' case on merits as their objection was rejected on the ground that they had not filed objection within time in spite of having knowledge of the proceedings taken against Munshi Singh. It is manifest that proceedings taken against Munshi Singh could not bind the petitioners, if they had share in the plots in dispute and they had acquired tenure- holders right as in that even the were entitled to separate notice as contemplated by R. 8. It is manifest that proceedings taken against Munshi Singh could not bind the petitioners, if they had share in the plots in dispute and they had acquired tenure- holders right as in that even the were entitled to separate notice as contemplated by R. 8. The Appellate Authority had first considered the case of Munshi Singh and rejected his appeal, thereafter it considered the petitioners' case and observed as follows : "As regards his sons, they are all grown" up persons and it cannot be believed that they had no knowledge of these proceedings. More so, it was the case of Munshi Singh that they are all co-sharers and therefore no notice under section 8 could be given to sons and t its case is not applicable to this case." The above observation of the learned Judge is entirely against the principles of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shantanu Kumar's case. (1979 All LJ 1174). Rule 8 contemplates service of notice on co-sharers who may not have been recorded. Munshi Singh's assertion was that the petitioners were co-sharers; then in view of the Full Bench decisions of this Court the necessity of issuing notice to them under R. 8 was mandatory and in the absence of any such notice to them the entire proceedings for declaring surplus land would be vitiated. The Appellate Authority committed serious error in holding that under R. 8 no notice was necessary to be given to the petitioners. 7. Munshi Singh's appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority and it is not necessary to discuss the reasons given by the Additional District Judge as Munshi Singh has not filed any writ petition and the order against him has become final. The petitioners are entitled to relief and their case should be considered on merits after giving them opportunity of adducing evidence. If the Prescribed Authority on appreciation of the evidence produced by the petitioners comes to the conclusion that the petitioners had share in the land in dispute, in that event surplus land shall be re-determined. 8. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11-5-1979 as well as the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-8-1978. The Prescribed Authority is directed to redetermine the surplus land after giving opportunity to the petitioners. 8. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11-5-1979 as well as the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-8-1978. The Prescribed Authority is directed to redetermine the surplus land after giving opportunity to the petitioners. The prayer for quashing the order dated 17-4-1976 is rejected. Parties shall bear their own costs.