ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The respondent No. 2 Hanuman Prasad was treated as the tenure holder and the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued to him. He filed his objections and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter, an appeal was filed which was initially allowed in part. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed and the same was allowed by me by my judgment dated 7-12-1979, a true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition. I remanded the case to the appellate Court for a fresh decision of a certain controversy which has been stated in my judgment. The appellate court, thereafter, reheard the appeal and allowed the same and held that there was no surplus land whatsoever with the tenure-holder. The appellate court's impugned judgment is dated 5-9-1981, a true copy of which is Annexure 3 to the petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come tip in the instant writ petition and in support therefore. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The petitioners claimed to be the allottees of the land. I t is said that the allotment was made on 25-6-1976. It should be seen that no allotment could be made on the said date as the ceiling proceedings had not become final before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority finally disposed of the ceiling case on 21-12-1977 as is clear from the judgment of this court in the earlier writ petition (Annexure 2 to this petition). Thereafter, an appeal was filed. The appellate court decided initially on 3-2-1979. I have already stated above that against the said appellate judgment dated 3-2-1979, the earlier writ petition was filed and I allowed the same and remanded the case again to the appellate court, which finally decided the appeal by the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 5-9-1981. It is, therefore, obvious that during the pendency of these ceiling proceedings-first before the Prescribed Authority and thereafter before the appellate court, no valid allotment could be made in favour of anyone. I n the ceiling proceedings the alleged allottees did not have any locus standi. The contest was between the tenure-holder and the State. It is, therefore, obvious that during the pendency of these ceiling proceedings-first before the Prescribed Authority and thereafter before the appellate court, no valid allotment could be made in favour of anyone. I n the ceiling proceedings the alleged allottees did not have any locus standi. The contest was between the tenure-holder and the State. It is not necessary to consider the case of the transferees etc. from the tenure-holder because different considerations may apply to determine whether in the ceiling proceedings such transferees have a locus standi or not. However, so far as the alleged allottees are concerned. I am clear in my mind that they did not come at all in the picture till the ceiling proceedings became final and the notification under S. 14 of the Act is issued. I have already stated above that the final verdict of the appellate court was that the tenure-holder did not hold any surplus land and, therefore, the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act stood discharged. I n such a situation, there was no question of any surplus land vesting in the State and being the subject-matter of any allotment. 5. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.