ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Nainital, dated Feb. 6, 1982. 2. Upon notice issued under S. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the respondent 1 filed objections dated May 14, 1980. The Prescribed Authority recorded his finding on Jan. 31, 1981. It was held that land covering the area of twenty-one Bighas nine Biswas situate within the limits of district Nainital was surplus. Against this determination the respondent 1 preferred appeal, which was decided under the impugned order dated Feb. 6, 1982. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, it appears, there was an issue raised for the respondent 1 to the effect that the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, who had passed the order dated Jan. 31, 1981, did not have the territorial jurisdiction to,adjudicate the surplus. This objection prevailed with the Appellate Authority, who set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. Kanpur, on this ground and observed that the State shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under the Act. 3. Aggrieved the State has approached this Court. 4. The sole question arising at this stage is whether the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, can be said. to have jurisdiction under the Act to proceed in the matter. Section 3(13) of the Act defines the expression 'Prescribed Authority' as under : 3(13). "Prescribed Authority' means such officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the first class as may be empowered by the State Government, by notification in the Gazette, to perform the functions of Prescribed Authority under this Act for such area or areas as may be specified in that behalf." Rule 5, framed under this Act reads : (1) All proceedings under the Act shall be held before the Prescribed Authority within whose jurisdiction the tenure- holder ordinarily resides. (2) Where the tenure-holder does not ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of any Prescribed Authority. the proceedings under the Act may be held before any Prescribed Authority within whose jurisdiction any one or more of the holdings of the tenure-holder are situate. 5. The notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur. (2) Where the tenure-holder does not ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of any Prescribed Authority. the proceedings under the Act may be held before any Prescribed Authority within whose jurisdiction any one or more of the holdings of the tenure-holder are situate. 5. The notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur. It is not in dispute that no part of the holding of the respondent 1 is situate within the territorial limits of the Kanpur district and that the holding is entirely within the limits of the district Nainital. The adjudication has been made by the Prescribed Authority. Kanpur. So far as S. 3 (13) of the Act is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority will depend upon the area, which is specified as capable of being dealt with by him. The Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, has indisputedly the jurisdiction to decide the matters pertaining to the area falling within the limits of his jurisdiction. As to whether this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, is ultimately to be resolved in the light of the provision contained in R. 5 quoted above. The Appellate Authority has taken the view that since no part of the land in question or holding of the respondent 1 is situate within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, he could not have the power to adjudicate in this behalf. This may be said to he covered under sub-rule (2) of R. 5, which says "where the tenure-holder does not ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority, the proceedings under the Act may be held before any Prescribed Authority within whose jurisdiction any one or more of the holdings of the tenure-holder are situate." The Appellate Authority seems to have overlooked that this sub-rule will come into the picture only if it were made out that the respondent tenure-holder does not ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur. It is in that event that the jurisdiction might be said to be vested in the Prescribed Authority, Nainital, since the land is situate within the limits thereof. In case, however, the tenure-holder respondent ordinarily resides within the jurisdiction of, the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur. sub-rule 1 of R. 5 would be attracted. It is in that event that the jurisdiction might be said to be vested in the Prescribed Authority, Nainital, since the land is situate within the limits thereof. In case, however, the tenure-holder respondent ordinarily resides within the jurisdiction of, the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur. sub-rule 1 of R. 5 would be attracted. That sub-rule is to the effect that proceedings under the Act shall be held before the Prescribed Authority within whose jurisdiction the tenure-holder ordinarily resides. The resolution of this question thus depends upon the decision as to whether the respondent tenure-holder does or does not ordinarily reside within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur. On this question there is no finding recorded either way by the Appellate Authority or the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, nor is there evidence placed 'On the record directed from the point of view of seeking adjudication on this score. 6. In the result the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority has to be set aside with the direction that he may re-adjudicate the question with reference, specifically, to R. 5(1) of the Rules framed under the Act after recording such additional evidence as is relevant on the point and which the parties may adduce before him. In case the finding of the appellate authority is that the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, it shall also go into the other issues raised in the appeal. 7. The petition is allowed accordingly. The order of the Civil Judge, Nainital, dated Feb. 6, 1982 (Annex. 3 to the writ petition) is quashed. The Civil Judge, Nainital, (Respondent 2) is directed to decide the matter afresh according to law and in the light of the observations contained in this decision. There will be no order regarding costs.