JUDGMENT K. C, Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner who was the tenure holder within the meaning of that term used in U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor, dated 13th August, 1981, accepting the appeal of the State and directing the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus area in accordance with the appellate judgment dated 6th October, 1977. 2. The petitioner was a tenure holder having his holding in a number of villages. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 18 of 1976 was served upon the petitioner in the year 1976 regarding his holdings in the villages mentioned above. The petitioner filed an objection on a a number of grounds under Section 10 (2). The Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence, held vide its judgment dated 30th June, 1976 that the petitioner had 46.39 acres of irrigated land as surplus. In the revenue appeal no. 480 of 1976 preferred by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge allowed the same partly and reduced the surplus area of the petitioner to 26.07 acres irrigated land. The learned Additional District Judge gave the following directions to the Prescribed Authority :- "The learned Prescribed Authority shall declare the plots as surplus land accordingly after taking choice of tenure holder........." Against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner as well as the State of U. P. filed writ petitions in this Court. The writ of the petitioner was numbered as writ petition no. 635 of 1978 whereas that of the State was numbered as 1132 of 1978. Writ petition no. 635 of 1978 was dismissed on the 18th December, 1978, whereas the writ of the State Government (no. 1132 of 1978) was dismissed on 25-8-1981. The petitioner filed an application for Special Leave before the Supreme Court but that was also rejected. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition No. 1132 of 1978 (preferred by the State), the State of U. P. published a notification dated 27-9-1979 in the U. P. Gazette dated 27th October, 1979 under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire certain area mentioned therein for construction of Barrage. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition No. 1132 of 1978 (preferred by the State), the State of U. P. published a notification dated 27-9-1979 in the U. P. Gazette dated 27th October, 1979 under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire certain area mentioned therein for construction of Barrage. This was followed by a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7-1-1980 which was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 9th January, 1980. Certain area of the petitioner was also, under the proceedings of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, included in the notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and possession of the same was taken by the State Government on the 27th July 1980. 4. Upon the matter coming before the Prescribed Authority for determining the plots to be declared surplus, the petitioner filed objection, inter alia, on the ground that as some land of the petitioner had been acquired by the State of U. P. for the construction of Barrage and possession thereof was also taken, the petitioner was entitled to the exclusion of the land which had been acquired by the State of U. P. from his surplus limit. He also had, however, given a choice with regard to the plots to be declared surplus in case the Authority decided to hold the same. The Prescribed Authority upheld the objection of the petitioner by the judgment dated February 23, 1982 by holding that the land which had been acquired by the State of U. P. for construction of Ganga Barrage was liable to be excluded from determination of the ceiling area. As a result of this order of the Prescribed Authority, the ceiling area which had been initially declared and had become final, was reduced. This petition is connected with writ No. 13310 of 1982, Mohd. Shafiq v. State of U. P. The facts of that petition are similar to the facts of this petition. 5. As a result of this order of the Prescribed Authority, the ceiling area which had been initially declared and had become final, was reduced. This petition is connected with writ No. 13310 of 1982, Mohd. Shafiq v. State of U. P. The facts of that petition are similar to the facts of this petition. 5. The petitioner has filed a copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23-2-1982 reducing the surplus area from 16.24 acres irrigated land to 4.90 acres irrigated land, Marghoobur Rahman, the petitioner of the present case, has not filed the copy of the Judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 23-2-1982, the counsel is not in a position to make a mention of the reduced area in this case. However, for the present the fact as to how much area was reduced is not material. 6. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23-2-1982, the State of U. P. went up in appeal to the District Judge which was transferred to the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal on 13-8-1981 and reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority. The learned Additional District Judge held that the ceiling surplus area of the petitioner was to be decided with reference to the land held by him on 8th June, 1973 and subsequent acquisition of the land by the State Government under the Land Acquisition would not entitle the Prescribed Authority to reduce the surplus area once determined and having become final. The learned Additional District Judge held that for the land acquired by the State of U. P., the petitioner had received compensation and, as such, there was neither any nor equity in his favour to justify reduction of the surplus land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the proceedings of determination of surplus land do not come to a final determination till the choice of tenure holder of the plots liable to be declared surplus are taken, hence, the petitioner was entitled to claim reduction of the area of the land which had gone out of his possession on account of land acquisition. He urged that while the plots to be determined as surplus, the Prescribed Authority was obliged in law to take into account the subsequent fact of acquisition. 7. Submission made is devoid of substance. 8. He urged that while the plots to be determined as surplus, the Prescribed Authority was obliged in law to take into account the subsequent fact of acquisition. 7. Submission made is devoid of substance. 8. The U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act had been passed as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which is as follows – "With a view to provide for more equitable distribution of land by making the same available to the extent possible to landless agricultural labourers and to provide for cultivation on co-operative basis and to conserve part of the available resources in laud so as to increase the production and preserve stock of food grains against lean years by carrying on cultivation on scientific lines in State-owned farms, it is expedient to impose ceiling on existing large land holdings. It is also necessary to provide some land to the village communities for their common needs, such as establishment of fuel and fodder reserves. The bill is therefore being introduced to promote the economic interest of the weaker section of community and to subserve the common good. " Under the Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is made for public purpose. The expression 'public purpose' would include a purpose for which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly involved. 9. Under Section 5 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The ceiling area is determined under this Act with reference to the land held on 8th June, 1983. This is a fixed point. The limit stands determined on this date. On this date a tenure holder becomes liable to hand over possession of the area in excess of the ceiling limit with him. The liability of the tenure holder to retain land within the ceiling area is determined with reference to this date. It is immaterial that the process of determination may take time. Taking of time by the various authorities in coming to the final decision of the area, does not mean that liability of the tenure holder arises on the date on which a final judgment or order is made. It is immaterial that the process of determination may take time. Taking of time by the various authorities in coming to the final decision of the area, does not mean that liability of the tenure holder arises on the date on which a final judgment or order is made. That being so, the petitioner became liable to give possession of the land in excess of the granted ceiling limit on 8th June, 1973. In the instant case, determination also had taken place much before the initiation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and its possession taken in consequence to the same. In the instant case, the learned Additional District Judge had finally determined the area on 6th October, 1977 that the petitioner had 26.07 acres irrigated land as surplus with him. The acquisition proceedings were started under the Land Acquisition Act much after in 1979 and possession in pursuance of the same was taken in 1980. The order of the Additional District Judge had although been challenged by means of a writ petition, but that does not make any difference in the instant case. In as much as the writ petition of the petitioner had also been rejected by the High Court on December 18, 1978, the right of the petitioner on that date at least had become final. If after the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act some land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the same would go out of the land possessed by the petitioner and he would not be entitled to reduction of the area acquired from the surplus land by him on 8th June, 1973. 10. If the land acquisition proceedings would have been taken after surplus land had been taken after possession of the surplus was acquired by the State Government, the petitioner would have admittedly not been entitled to get the land of the area to be reduced of the surplus land. That being so, merely because possession was deferred and could not be taken from the petitioner of the land declared surplus, he cannot be held entitled to get any reduction of the area acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. For the land acquired, the petitioner had been compensated by the State Government. He was never prepared to part with that compensation. For the land acquired, the petitioner had been compensated by the State Government. He was never prepared to part with that compensation. In compliance with Section 12-A, the Additional District Judge had directed the Prescribed Authority by its judgment dated 6th October, 1977 that he shall declare the plots as surplus after obtaining choice of the petitioner. The petitioner could offer the plots which had been acquired by the State of U. P. under the Land Acquisition Act and agree to the taking of compensation payable to him instead of the plots left with him in his possession. This he did not do. His insistence of getting the area reduced which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act from the area declared surplus appears to be unjustified. He did not have any legal rights to the inferences. The area surplus with him had been declared to be as 26.07 acres. He had to get the same. Acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act is not at all material and could not effect the determination of surplus area which had to be made with reference to the land held by him on 8th June, 1973. Permitting a Court to do it would amount the confirmation of a power which it does not possess under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 11. The argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that as the determination of surplus did not amount to conclusion of the proceedings, until choice of the plots had been specified, is against the correct interpretation of various provisions of the Act. Determination takes place and is complete when area in possession of the tenure holder is declared as surplus. It is the determination with reference to the area held by the tenure holder that his surplus land is declared. The choice is exercised only for a limited purpose as to the plots which he would like to retain. 12. Determination takes place and is complete when area in possession of the tenure holder is declared as surplus. It is the determination with reference to the area held by the tenure holder that his surplus land is declared. The choice is exercised only for a limited purpose as to the plots which he would like to retain. 12. Relying on Satyapal Singh v. State, 1979 AWC 217 the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the said case when the area held by a tenure holder was reduced in consolidation proceedings, the Division Bench of this Court held that : "To the extent of the area reduced in consolidation proceedings, a tenure holder is entitled to have its benefit in the proceedings of determination of ceiling area under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act." Another decision relied upon was Ram Charan Singh v. State, 1978 AWC 677 . The following observations asking the Division Bench pronouncement in Satyapal Singh's case are material about the situation as to when the ratio of the Full Bench would apply ;- "Learned counsel invited our attention to a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Charan v. State of U. P. (Supra). At the end of judgment, an illustration with reference to Section 29 of the Ceiling Act was dealt with. But that had no bearing upon the position as obtaining in the present case. The Full Bench was concerned with the reverse case, namely, where consolidation proceeding commenced after the completion of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Here, we are concerned with the problem of Ceiling Act proceedings commencing while consolidation proceedings are going on and before the completion of proceedings under the Ceiling Act, final orders had been passed under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This position is not dealt with in the aforesaid decision." 13. The observations of the Full Bench which are material for the purpose of this writ petition are stated below - "It was also stressed that Section 29 of the Ceiling Act provides for re-determination of ceiling area of a tenure-holder where he has come to hold under a decree or order by any Court or as a result of succession or transfer or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, land which together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him. But the Ceiling Act makes no provision either in Section 29 or any where else where a tenure-holder may unfortunately happen to lose some land after his ceiling area has been determined under the Ceiling Act. " 14. These two decisions were considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Radhey Shyam v. Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, 1983 ALR 723. The learned Single Judge observed with whom I respectfully agree that there will be no effect of the subsequent orders passed in the consolidation proceedings on the prior determination of surplus land in the ceiling proceedings. From these observations, it would appear that even reduction of area in consolidation proceedings was held to have no effect on the determination which proceeded was subsequent to ceiling. This decision does not help the petitioner. The area acquired under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be reduced from the land which has already been declared as surplus under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The liability of the tenure holder to pay damages for use and occupation of the surplus land has been laid down in Section 16 of the Act to be from 8th June, 1973. This Section also supports the view that the crucial date is 8th June, 1973. 15. In writ petition no. 11357 of 1981, Madho Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 15th September, 1983, a Division Bench was called upon to consider a similar controversy. In that case, the petitioner wanted to lay claim on the compensation which had been awarded for the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held : "After declaration of land measuring 21.47 acres as surplus, the petitioner had lost right, title and interest in the same, and he was not entitled to get compensation in respect of the same, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer." 16. Much emphasis was laid on Section 14 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Learned counsel urged that till possession had not been taken of the land declared surplus, right, title and interest of the tenure holder does not extinguish. Much emphasis was laid on Section 14 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Learned counsel urged that till possession had not been taken of the land declared surplus, right, title and interest of the tenure holder does not extinguish. Accordingly, the submission was that as possession of the land declared surplus had not been obtained by the State Government under Section 14, the land acquired under the Acquisition Act continued to be the land of the tenure holder and the area of that acquired land would be liable to be reduced at that subsequent stage when possession is taken after choice. The submission is not correct. Section 14 has to be read along with Section 5. Determination takes place under Section 5 and Section 14 lays down only a procedure as to how the plots actually declared surplus would be notified. It is not that Section 14 would reduce the area liable to be declared surplus under Section 5. Section 5 lays down the total aggregate which the tenure holder is entitled to possess after the enforcement of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Hence, merely because possession had not been taken, it would not be correct that the petitioner was entitled to get the area acquired reduced from the land declared surplus under Section 3 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged. Petition dismissed.