JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred against the judgment of the. Civil Judge, Naini Tal, dated 4-3-1982 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29th December, 1980. The direction given in this judgment was :- "It is hereby expressly mentioned in order to remove ambiguity, the State shall be at liberty to take possession of the land declare surplus vide order passed on 21-3-77 in Ceiling Appeal no. 372 of 1975 State of U.P. v. Shri K. G. Rekhi. The cross objection is also allowed." 2. Petitioner no. 1 was a tenure holder of an area 138 bighas 4 biswa of land. His wife, Smt. Sarla Rekhi respondent no. 4, was tenure holder of 137 bighas 2 biswas of land and her daughter Km. Sanjiwani respondent no 5 was tenure holder of 142 bighas 3 biswas of land. 3. After clubbing the land of respondents 4 and, 5 with that of petitioner no. 1, a notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued by the prescribed Authority which was served on 31st October, 1974 proposing to declare the area mentioned in the same as surplus The petitioner no. 1 filed an objection against the said notice pleading inter alia, that his wife and daughter were tenure holders in their own rights and the land could not be clubbed with him for the purpose of finding oui surplus. The petitioner no. 1 further alleged that by means of various sale deeds, the details of which have been given in para 3, he had sold away a huge area and that area ceased to belong to him and, therefore, could not be treated as his for the purpose of determining ceiling limit or surplus area. 4. On 28th February, 1975, the prescribed Authority found that the petitioner no. 1 possessed an area of 150 bighas 39 biswas (6.35 hectares) in excess of the ceiling limit. He found that Smt. Sanjiwani, respondent no. 5, was major. Her land could not be clubbed with her father, petitioner no. 1. Against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority, Ceiling appeal no. 1 possessed an area of 150 bighas 39 biswas (6.35 hectares) in excess of the ceiling limit. He found that Smt. Sanjiwani, respondent no. 5, was major. Her land could not be clubbed with her father, petitioner no. 1. Against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority, Ceiling appeal no. 372 of 1975 was filed by the State of U.P. It may be noted here that neither did the petitioner nor his wife whose land was clubbed with her husband, had preferred any appeal against it. Four other appeals against the aforesaid Judgment were filed by petitioners 9 to 12, the details of which are given below. 1. Ceiling appeal no. 147 of 77 Arjun Singh v. State ; 2. Ceiling appeal no. 148 of 77 Surat Singh v. State ; 3. Ceiling appeal no. 149 of 77 Raghubir Singh v. State ; 4. Ceiling appeal no. 150 of 77 Prabhjujeet Singh v. State ; Although petitioner no. 1 had raised any grievance about the declaration of 150 bighas 19 biswas as surplus by the Prescribed Authority, still the Additional District Judge while disposing of the appeal no. 372 of 75 filed by the State of U.P., reduced the surplus area further from 150 bighas 10 biswas to 123 bighas 3 biswas. In the judgment dated 21-3-1977, the learned 1st Additional District Judge further found that since a joint application had been moved that the surplus be taken from the land declared surplus in the name of petitioner no. 1 i.e. 123 bighas 3 biswas. The petitioner no,. R thereafter, moved an application for review of the order of the Additional District Judge in so far as it directed for taking over possession of surplus land. This review application was numbered as Misc. case no. 15 of 77. This review came up for decision before the learned Additional District Judge on 21st November, 1977 when Shri H. D. Sharma, the learned D. G. C. appearing for the State, stated ; ljdkj] tks ekeyk bl fuxjkuh esa fooknxzLr gS vkSj tks Hkwfe bl ekeys ls lEcfU/kr gS dks /kkjk 13&, ,DV esaA lu~ 1961 ds varxZr (Reopen) djus tk jgh gS vkSj tc rd (Reopen) ds ckn ekeyk r; ugha gks tk;sxk ljdkj Hkwfe ij dCtk ugha ysxhA 5. On that statement, the application for review was dismissed on 26-11-1977. 6. On that statement, the application for review was dismissed on 26-11-1977. 6. The four appeals of petitioners 9 to 12 came up for hearing before the III Additional District Judge who by the order and judgment dated 3rd December, 1977, dismissed these appeals with costs. As a similar statement had been made by the D. G. C. before the III Additional District Judge in these appeals as was mentioned in the review application, the learned Additional District Judge directed : "The D. G. C. will get his fee as prescribed by the State Government in each of the appeals. Till the decision of the case which is proposed to be reopened under Section 13-A of U. P Act No. 1 of 1961 against the tenure holder Sri Krishna Gopal Rekhi, the possession over the surplus land will not be taken in view of the statement paper no. 25 Ga of the D. G. C. (Civil), Nainital. Let a copy of the judgment be placed in ceiling appeals no. 148, 149 and 150 of 1977." 7. Thereafter the proceedings were reopened by means of fresh notices under Section 10 (2) to the petitioners, except petitioner no. 7 as well as respondents 4 and 5, on 28-5-1979. Objections were filed to these notices by petitioner 1 to 6 and 8 to 12. 8. On 29-12-1980, the prescribed Authority held that the sale deeds obtained from petitioner no. 1 and respondents 4 and 5 were valid. On this ground, he held that the notices issued under Section 10 (2) were liable to be discharged. Against this judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 29-12-1980, the State of U.P. filed ceiling appeal no. 3 of 1981. The learned District Judge allowed the ceiling appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. The direction given by him is being quoted below :- "It is hereby expressly mentioned in order to remove ambiguity, that the State shall be at liberty to take possession of the land declared surplus vide order passed on 21-3-77 in Ceiling appeal no. 372 of 1975 State of U.P. v. K.G. Rekhi. The "cross objection is also allowed." 9. Against this, the writ petition has been filed by petitioner no. 1, who was the original tenure holder, and petitioners 2 to 12, who were the transferees. 10. 372 of 1975 State of U.P. v. K.G. Rekhi. The "cross objection is also allowed." 9. Against this, the writ petition has been filed by petitioner no. 1, who was the original tenure holder, and petitioners 2 to 12, who were the transferees. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the proceeding: initiated on the basis of second notice dated 28th May, 1979 were found by the learned District Judge to be without jurisdiction and null and void, the learned District Judge had no power to give the direction to the State of U.P. for taking possession over the land in pursuance of the previous orders of the 1st Addl. District Judge dated 21st March, 1977 and the III Additional District Judge dated 1-12-1977 submission is not acceptable to me. Sub-section (3) of Section 31 which was inserted by the Amending Act no. 20 of 1976 reads as under :- "Where an order determining surplus, land in relation to tenure holder has been made under the principal Act before the tenth day of October, 1974, the prescribed Authority (as defined in the Principal Act) may at any time within a period of two years from the said date, redetermine the surplus land in accordance with Principal Act as amended by the Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against each order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land." 11. In the instant case, the fresh proceedings were started on 28-5-1979 when notices under Section 10 (2) were issued. That was beyond two years from 10-10-1975. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was right in holding that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29-12-1980 holding that the petitioner no. 1 did not possess any surplus land was without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside. Against this order of the Additional District Judge holding the proceedings taken before the Prescribed Authority id pursuance of the notice dated 28-5-1979 to be invalid, no writ petition has been filed by the State. It can, therefore, be presumed that the State of U.P. is not aggrieved by the same and I am not called upon to consider its validity. 12. The question that was raised by the learned counsel for the State, has already been mentioned by me above. It can, therefore, be presumed that the State of U.P. is not aggrieved by the same and I am not called upon to consider its validity. 12. The question that was raised by the learned counsel for the State, has already been mentioned by me above. The contention of the learned counsel that no direction of taking over possession could be given by the Civil Judge in the present proceedings does not appear to me to be convincing. Courts of law exist for doing justice and not for entertaining technical objections and subverting the rights of the parties. 13. It had been finally settled by the decision of the 1st Additional District Judge given on 21st March, 1977 that 123 bighas 3 biswas of land of petitioner no. 1 was surplus with him. The 1st Additional District Judge has also said that the surplus land could be taken from the holding of petitioner no. 1. The controversy, therefore, about 123 bighas 3 biswas of land to be surplus with petitioner no. 1 had become final and admittedly, no further proceedings had been preferred against the same. 14. It would have taken its possession but for the statement of the D. G. C. (Civil) made before the Court that as the State of U.P. was intending to reopen the proceedings, it would not take possession till those proceedings are over. The fresh proceedings failed on account of the notices, under Section 10 (2) being issued but the same will not effect the washing off the Judgment by which the land of petitioner no. 1 had been declared surplus. The petitioner no. 1 had filed the review application against the same on the ground that his counsel was not authorised to give choice about the land of which possession could be taken. Counsel for the State contended before that the review application was misconceived and had been filed only for the sole object of delaying the acquisition proceedings. Be that as it may, on account of the statement of the D.G.C., the review application was not decided on merits, the proper course is to send the case back to the District Judge for the limited purpose of deciding the review application no 15 of 1977. The controversy would be confined strictly within the four corners of the grounds given in the review application. The controversy would be confined strictly within the four corners of the grounds given in the review application. So far as declaration of 123 bighas 3 biswas of land is concerned, that has become final and under the garb of this review, the petitioner no. 1 cannot be permitted to challenge its correctness. 15. So far as the four appeals filed by petitioners 9 to 12 are concerned they were not dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability. The learned Additional District Judge had held that the sale deeds were invalid being hit by Section 8. In these appeals a direction of the same nature, as was given by the 1st Additional District Judge in appeal no. 372 of 1975, had also been given. This statement was given under a misunderstanding of law. To keep the record straight, it appears appropriate to set aside the judgment of the III Additional District Judge dated 1-12-1977 and to direct the appeals of petitioners 9 to 12 decided afresh. It may be noted that no transferee had preferred any appeal. 16. For these reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the III Additional District Judge dated 1-12-1977 is set aside and he is directed to decide the ceiling appeals 147 to 150 of 1977 as well as the Miscellaneous case no. 15 of 1977 made in ceiling appeal no 372 of 1976 afresh. There shall be no order as to costs.