JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J.- By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated October 30, 1981 made by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 27th February, 1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Nainital in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). 2. On February 28, 1975 the Prescribed Authority made determination of the ceiling area relating to the petitioner and was of the view that 94 Bigha 16 biswas of land is surplus with him. In appeal, the decision of the Prescribed Authority was confirmed on June 2, 1976. The petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition No. 3763 of 1976 under Article 226 of the Constitution against these decisions. The petition was decided on July 4, 1976 and the case remanded with the directions to the Prescribed Authority to decide the irrigated/ unirrigated character of the land. Thereafter on August 30, 1980 the Prescribed Authority reiterated the decision that he had taken earlier namely that 94 Bighas 16 biswas was surplus with the petitioner. Against this an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was decided on March 19,1981. The appellate authority came to the finding that plots Nos. 68, 69 and 70 were not irrigated and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus land of the petitioner. Before the Prescribed Authority the petitioner made an application on August 27, 1981 under Sections 12-A/11 of the Act wherein prayed that the area shown against him in the revenue papers might be measured, and leaving out the ceiling area, the surplus land be carved out from plot no. 68 towards the extreme north adjoining to plot No. 67. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on October 30, 1981 observing that no such objection has been raised by the petitioner at the earlier stage. In appeal also the view taken by the Prescribed Authority was maintained on February 27, 1982. 3. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of Section 5(1) of the Act he is entitled to hold land which is within the ceiling area applicable to him. It is not in dispute any longer that the ceiling area in relation to him in 27 acres. 3. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of Section 5(1) of the Act he is entitled to hold land which is within the ceiling area applicable to him. It is not in dispute any longer that the ceiling area in relation to him in 27 acres. The argument is that the total area recorded in the revenue papers is not correct ; the petitioner is entitled to contend that 27 acres being within the ceiling area be left over to him and the rest taken over as the surplus land. This contention of the petitioner was negatived the authorities below on the assumption that no such objection was taken earlier and the previous orders have attained finality. This proceeds upon misconception. The petitioner has filed copy of the objection filed by him under Section 10 (2) of the Act which shows that as early as December 4, 1974 he had pleaded that the total area under his cultivation is 28 acres (Annexure V to the writ petition). On March 19, 1981 the appellate authority, it appears, determined the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner and decided the irrigated/unirrigated character of certain plots. The case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with the direction to carve out the surplus land in the light of this decision. This moreover is necessarily consequential and thus implicit in the decision of this Court given in Writ petition No. 3763 of 1976 on July 4, 1979 (Annexure I). The court directed decision to be recorded on the point of irrigated/unirrigated character of the land no doubt but the Prescribed Authority is not to stop at that. He has necessarily to proceed to implement the decision in the manner provided under the law. The appellate court is not right therefore, in taking the view on 27th February, 1982 that this Court's decision aforesaid precludes the petitioner even from indicating his choice regarding the surplus land. Measurement would be necessary, it appears, in order to arrive at the exact extent of land available on the spot as surplus. It would be incongruous and against the spirit of the Act for the Prescribed Authority to carve out 5 acres as surplus land without ensuring that 27 acres (which is within the ceiling area) is actually left over with the petitioner. It would be incongruous and against the spirit of the Act for the Prescribed Authority to carve out 5 acres as surplus land without ensuring that 27 acres (which is within the ceiling area) is actually left over with the petitioner. The settled principle is that no tenure holder by operation of law or by an act of the Court shall be deprived of the ceiling area which he is entitled to hold vide : Raghunandan Singh v. District Judge and others (1981 All. L.J. 517). In Dhirendra Mohan Chaudhary and others v. II Additional District Judge (1979 A.W.G. 9), it was held that whereas in this' case a plea has been raised that the area of the petitioners is really less than the recorded area in the revenue extracts, it is the duty of the ceiling authorities to ascertain the truth and determine the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Consideration being had to the above, the petition succeed and is allowed. The order dated October 30, 1981 made by the Prescribed Authority, Rudrapur district Nainital and the order dated February 27, 1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Nainital (Annexures III and VI) are set aside. The Prescribed Authority is directed to carve out the ceiling area measuring 27 acres out of the land held by the petitioner and having regard to the choice of the petitioner determine the surplus land according to law. There will be no order as to costs.