JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority, dated 26-10-1979 and also against the order of the District Judge dated 13-4-1981. 2. The petitioner is a tenure holder who holds his land in village Chatwar Pargana Agori, Tahsil Robertsganj, District Mirzapur. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended in 1973, was issued to the petitioner along with the statement proposing declaration of surplus land. The petitioner filed objection against the proposal but the same was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30th October, 1976, declaring an area of 33 bighas, 12 bissas and 15 dhorors as surplus land. The Prescribed Authority directed the petitioner to indicate his choice as contemplated by Section 12-A of the Act. The petitioner gave his choice according to which, he offered the disputed land to be taken by the State as surplus land. The Prescribed Authority accepted the choice given by the petitioner and declared the surplus land including the land which is in dispute and in respect of which Vidyapati and others had been claiming Sirdari rights. It appears that Vidyapati and others, respondents 4 to 13, had been in possession of the land in dispute and had acquired knowledge about the declaration of the surplus land. They made an application before the Prescribed Authority on 27-9-77 with a prayer that the land was in their possession and that they had been recorded in Ziman 9 and the same should not have been declared surplus, as Lal Gopal Singh, who was the recorded tenure-holder had lost his rights in the land. It appears that the petitioner had acquired knowledge of the proceedings and he appeared before the Prescribed Authority and contested the application of the aforesaid respondents. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30-8-1978 recalled the earlier order dated 6-9-77, accepting the petitioner's choice on the findings that the land over which the respondents 4 to 13 were in possession could not be declared surplus and the same was released from the surplus land. The petitioner filed an application on 4-12-1978 before the Prescribed Authority for the recall of the order dated August 30,1978, on the ground that the order was ex parte and without notice to the petitioner. The respondents contested that application. The petitioner filed an application on 4-12-1978 before the Prescribed Authority for the recall of the order dated August 30,1978, on the ground that the order was ex parte and without notice to the petitioner. The respondents contested that application. The Prescribed Authority, vide its order, dated 26-10-1979 dismissed the petitioner's application and affirmed the order dated 30th August, 1978. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an appeal before the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The District Judge, vide its order dated 13-4-1981 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority holding that the in spite of the opportunity being given to the petitioner, he did not indicate his choice and the order dated 30th August, 1978, was not passed ex parte. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court against the aforesaid two orders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that though the petitioner had acquired knowledge about the respondents' application for setting aside the order dated 6-9-77, and the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, but, he was not given any opportunity to make his submissions before the Prescribed Authority before passing the order dated 30th August, 1978. The Prescribed Authority, as well as, the District Judge, both, have held that the petitioner had knowledge about the application of the respondents dated September 27, 1977, and that the petitioner was given opportunity to indicate his choice again but he did not avail of that opportunity. The petitioner has, however, asserted in paragraph 10 (1) of the petition, that on 21st March, 1978, the Prescribed Authority ordered that the notices be sent to the petitioner for 31st March, 1978. Thereafter no order sheet was maintained. The Prescribed Authority fixed August 30, 1978, for hearing of the arguments. But, no arguments were heard and the order dated August 30, 1978, was passed without hearing the petitioner. As already noted the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge both have not accepted the petitioner's contention on the ground that the petitioner had acquired knowledge of the proceedings and he had been given opportunity to indicate his choice again. But, no arguments were heard and the order dated August 30, 1978, was passed without hearing the petitioner. As already noted the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge both have not accepted the petitioner's contention on the ground that the petitioner had acquired knowledge of the proceedings and he had been given opportunity to indicate his choice again. Even if the petitioner had acquired knowledge and even if he had participated in the proceedings initiated by means of their application dated 27-9-1977, the order dated 6-9-1977 could not recalled without hearing the petitioner and specially when the Prescribed Authority had fixed 30th August 1978, as the date tor hearing arguments. No finding has been recorded either by the Prescribed Authority or by the District Judge that the order dated 30th August, 1978, was passed after hearing the petitioner's arguments. It is true that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and he had participated in the same but at the same time it is clear from the order sheet that the petitioner's arguments were not heard before passing the order dated August 30, 1978. The averments contained in paragraph 10(1) of the petition have not been adequately controverted by the respondents. It appears that no order sheet was maintained by the Preserved Authority after 22nd March 1978, upto 30th August, 1978. This is clear from the answer given by the petitioner on the inquiry ship made by him, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petitioner. On a perusal of the same I find that the office of the Prescribed Authority has given reply that no order sheet was maintained from 22nd March, 1978 to 30 August, 1978. This being the position, it is apparent that the petitioner's arguments were not heard by the Prescribed Authority before it passed the order dated August 30, 1978. 4. The Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioner's application for recalling the order dated August 30, 1978, by its order dated 26-10-1979. The Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioner's application on the basis that the petitioner had been given full opportunity to contest the respondents' application and the order dated August 30, 1978, was passed after hearing the petitioner. 4. The Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioner's application for recalling the order dated August 30, 1978, by its order dated 26-10-1979. The Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioner's application on the basis that the petitioner had been given full opportunity to contest the respondents' application and the order dated August 30, 1978, was passed after hearing the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority has given an additional reason also that a compromise had been entered into between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 13 on 28th June, 1979, much after the order dated August 30, 1978, was passed. A certified copy of the compromise has been produced before me by the counsel for the petitioner. On a perusal of the same it appears that the petitioner has conceded the respondent's claim that they had been in possession over the land in dispute for a long period and that they had acquired Bhumidhari rights. It appears that compromise was filed before the Prescribed Authority with a request that the land for which the respondents 4 to 13 have been recorded in Ziman 9 should be excluded from the petitioner's land while determining the ceiling area. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the petitioner's plea for excluding the disputed plots from his holdings, instead it proceeded on the presumption that the petitioner bad accepted the respondent's claim and as such, it was not necessary to recall the order dated August 30, 1978, by which the respondents' claim to the land in dispute had been accepted. The Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge, both, failed to realise that grave injustice was being done to the petitioner as on the one hand choice given by the petitioner for declaring the plots in dispute as surplus land was refused and on the other hand the same land was included in the petitioner's holding for the purposes of determining the ceiling area. It was not a case of transfer or partition. On the other hand the respondents were claiming right of the basis of their possession as trespassers. In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of U.P., 1979 ALJ 81, it was held by this Court that if the plots which are given up by the tenure holder as surplus plots are under litigation or is in possession of the trespasser, the said land cannot be treated as the land of the tenure holder. In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of U.P., 1979 ALJ 81, it was held by this Court that if the plots which are given up by the tenure holder as surplus plots are under litigation or is in possession of the trespasser, the said land cannot be treated as the land of the tenure holder. The District Judge and the described Authority, both, failed to appreciate this legal position. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in spite of the compromise the respondents 4 to 13 could not and did not acquire any rights to the land in dispute as the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. were not parties to the compromise on the basis of which the Prescribed Authority accepted the respondents' claim. He, further, urged that since the petitioner was recorded tenure holder of the disputed plots, he was well within his rights to offer that land as surplus land. The mere fact that the respondents were in possession of that land, did not take away the petitioner's right to offer the same as surplus land. He cited certain authorities' before me in support of his contention. I do not think it necessary to discuss this question in detail as in my opinion this matter should be decided by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. 5. In view of the above discussion I hold that the order dated August 30, 1978, was passed, without hearing the petitioner's Arguments and as such, the same is rendered illegal. Since the subsequent order of the Prescribed Authority dated 26-10-1979 was founded on the order of August 30, 1978, it also fails. For the same reason the order of the District Judge is also vitiated. Though the petitioner has not expressly claimed relief for quashing of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated August 30, 1978, yet I and it necessary' in the interest of justice to quash the same also as that will enhance the cause of justice. 6. What will be the effect of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 13 admitting their claim of Bhumidhari right in the plots in dispute will be considered and determined by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. The Parties have given an undertaking that they will advance their arguments and no evidence will be produced by them. 7. The Parties have given an undertaking that they will advance their arguments and no evidence will be produced by them. 7. In the result I allow the petition and quash the order of the District Judge dated 13-4-81 and the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 26-10-79 and 30-8-1978. The proceedings are remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the arguments of the parties be heard before recalling the order dated 6-9-79 accepting the petitioner's choice for the surplus land. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.