ORDER R.B. Lal, J. - By these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the State of U.P. prays for quashing the order of the appellate authority (II Addl. District Judge, Budaun) passed on 19-11-79. 2. The relevant facts lie within a short compass. Proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (briefly the Act) were taken against Hira Lal, respondent No. 1, for determining surplus land in his hands. The Prescribed Authority determined surplus land in the hands of Hira Lal by order dated 27-5-76. The notification of the surplus land in the official gazette was made on 2-10-76. In exercise of the powers under sub-sec. (1) of S. 13-A of the Act, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to Hira Lal on 25-9-78. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority determined some more land as surplus in the hands of Hira Lal. Both Hira Lal and the State did not feel satisfied and filed appeals under S. 13 of the Act and those appeals were decided by the IInd Additional District Judge by a common judgment dated 19-11-79. The plea taken up by Hira Lal was that the notice could not be issued under S. 13-A(1) because more than two years had elapsed from the date of notification. This plea was accepted and it was held that the proceedings for re-determination were time barred. The appellate authority did not decide any other point. In the result, the appeal of the State was dismissed and that of the tenure-holder Hira Lal was allowed and the determination of Additional surplus land was set aside. 3. The State of U.P. has challenged this order of the appellate authority. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 13-A of the Act is relevant and may be set out : "13-A. Re-determination of surplus land in certain cases.- (1) The Prescribed Authority may, at any time, within a period of two years from the date of notification under (sub-sec. (4) of S. 14), rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record; Provided ............................. 6. Here it may be clarified that in sub -sec. (1) of S. 13-A originally there was reference to sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Act, but by an amendment which became effective from 6th August 1976, sub-sec. (4) of S. 14), rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record; Provided ............................. 6. Here it may be clarified that in sub -sec. (1) of S. 13-A originally there was reference to sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Act, but by an amendment which became effective from 6th August 1976, sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 was substituted in place of sub-sec. (i) of-S. 14. 7. Sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 of the Act as stood after substitution with effect from 6 -8-76 reads, thus : "14. Acquisition of surplus land. (4) The Prescribed Authority shall, as soon as may be, after the date mentioned in cl. (a), Cl. (b) or Cl. (c), as the case may be, of sub-sec. (1) notify in the Official Gazette every surplus land determined under this Act, or under S. 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1974 or under S. 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976." 8. S. 14 under-went substantial changes with effect from 6-8-76. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Act as it stood prior to 6-8-76 was in these terms : "14. Acquisition of surplus land. -(1) The Prescribed Authority shall (i) in case, where the order passed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 has become final, or (ii) in case, where no appeal has been preferred under S. 13 after the expiry of the period of limitation provided therefor, or (iii) in case, where an appeal has been preferred under S. 13, after its decision, notify in the Official Gazette the surplus land determined under Sections 11, 12 or 13, as the case may be." 9. A comparison of sub-sect. (1) of S. 14 and sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 which have been quoted above, would show that in terms these sub-sections were the same. When S. 14 was substantially overhauled the provisions of sub-sec. (1 (as quoted above) were incorporated in sub-sec. (4) with necessary amendments. Sub-sec (1) of S. 14 provided for notification of surplus land determined by the Prescribed Authority in the Official gazette. Likewise, sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 as it stands with effect from 6-8-76 also makes provision for notification of surplus land determined under the act in the Official Gazette. 10. (4) with necessary amendments. Sub-sec (1) of S. 14 provided for notification of surplus land determined by the Prescribed Authority in the Official gazette. Likewise, sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 as it stands with effect from 6-8-76 also makes provision for notification of surplus land determined under the act in the Official Gazette. 10. The notification referred to in sub-sec.(1) of S. 13-A could refer to only a notification in the Official Gazette. The learned Additional District Judge committed an error of law when he said that the word notification in S. 13-A(1) could not be taken as a notification in the Official Gazette. As said earlier, the notification in the Official Gazette was made on 2-10-76 and notice to the tenure-holder was given on 25-9-78. The proceedings for rectification of mistake under S. 13-A could not, therefore, be held barred by time in this case on the ground that on the date of notice to the tenure-holder more than two years had elapsed from the date of notification. the contrary view taken by the learned Additional District Judge is legally erroneous and cannot be sustained. 11. Learned counsel for Hira Lal, tenure-holder-respondent, has tried to support the impugned orders of the learned Additional District Judge on another ground. He has urged that under sub-sec.(1) of S. 13-A of the Act the proceedings for rectification of mistake should have been completed within two years from the date of notification in the Official Gazette, and since in the instant case, the order of rectification determining some more land as surplus land was passed on 30-12-78 i.e. more than two years after the date of notification in the Official Gazette, that order was legally erroneous and could not be sustained. This submission has been made for the first time at the stage writ petition, but since it raises a pure question of law, it merits consideration. 12. The learned Standing Counsel has urged that in sub-sec. (1) of S. 13-A of the Act, the period of two years has been laid down for initiating the proceedings for rectification of mistake and not foil conclusion of such proceedings. 13. I have given careful consideration to the above submission and have considered the language should be given its natural and normal meaning. The sub-sec. (1) of S. 13-A of the Act, the period of two years has been laid down for initiating the proceedings for rectification of mistake and not foil conclusion of such proceedings. 13. I have given careful consideration to the above submission and have considered the language should be given its natural and normal meaning. The sub-sec. (1) provides that the Prescribed Authority may rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record within a period of two years from the date of notification. The setting in which the expression 'rectify' has been used in sub-sec. (1) makes it clear that the expression is used in the sense of order of rectification and in no other sense. This is also indicated by the use of the expression "no such rectification" in the proviso to sub-sec. (1). In order to interpret the term 'rectify' as meaning issuance of a notice for taking proceeding for rectification, some more words will have to be read in sub-sec. (1) which are not there. If the Legislature intended that, the issuance of notice for initiation of rectification proceedings alone show take place within two years it could clearly say so. Sub-sec. (2)' of S. 13-A is also relevant. This sub-section provides foil application of the provisions of several sections including section 13 of the Act to a proceeding taken under sub-sec. (1) of S. 13-A. Under S. 13 of the Act. an appeal lies only against a final order of determination of surplus land. This also indicated that the order envisaged in sub -sec. (1) of S. 13-A is an order of rectification and nothing else. In my view the submission of the learned counsel for Hira Lal, tenure-holder, is well founded. 14. The notification in the Official Gazette was made on 2-10-76. The order of rectification was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 30-12-78. It was clearly beyond the period of two years prescribed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 13-A of the Act. The order of the Prescribed Authority was, therefore. liable to he set aside on this ground. 15. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge does not deserve interference as it is sustainable on another ground as indicated above. 16. In the result, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 17. liable to he set aside on this ground. 15. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge does not deserve interference as it is sustainable on another ground as indicated above. 16. In the result, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 17. Learned Standing Counsel has orally pray@d for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. No substantial question of law of general importance which requires consideration of the Supreme Court is involved in these writ petitions and, therefore, the leave in refused.