JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that the land in question was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1970 through a registered sale deed from the transferees of Chhotey Lal Saheb and Raja Virendra Vikram Singh. Swami Dayal and others, the transferees (transferors?) of the petitioners, moved an application under section 14 of the Act and since the transfer was made before the relevant date, the land in dispute was excluded from the holding of Raja Virendra Vikram Singh and was held to be the holding of Swami Dayal and others. On coming to learn about the proceedings under he U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the petitioners moved an application under section 13A of the Act. The Prescribed Authority rejected the said application on the ground of maintainability, also on the ground that there was no application for condonation of delay. The matter went up in appeal before the District Judge who also dismissed the same. From the facts it is thus clear that the land was excluded from the declaration of surplus land of Virendra Vikram Singh and it was recorded in the name of transferees. The application under section 13A of the Act could have been treated to be an objection under section 11 (2) of the Act, as it is substance and not the form which is material. The petitioners could have been directed to move an application in support of condonation of delay who would have explained the delay or pleaded that for few years for question of delay for third party was immaterial. In this view of the matter the land is to be excluded from the holding of Swami Dayal and others. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge cannot be allowed to sustain. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 1461982 contained in Annexure7 and the order passed by the District Judge dated 2871982 contained in Annexure8 are quashed. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge cannot be allowed to sustain. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 1461982 contained in Annexure7 and the order passed by the District Judge dated 2871982 contained in Annexure8 are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to restore back the Petitioner's application under section 13A of the Act, to its original number and decide it, treating as an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act giving effect to correct legal and factual position. There will be no order as to costs. (Petition allowed)