JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises from proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. One Satya Narain Singh was Bhumidhar/Sirdar of the land in dispute. Admittedly he died on August 6, 1972 before the U.P. Act 18 of 1973 came into force with effect from June 8, 1973. A notice was issued in his name under section 10 (2) of the Act subsequent to his death. The petitioner Ranjit singh, the son of Satya Narain Singh, raised objections including on the point that the land was unirrigated. The objections were repelled by the Prescribed Authority on May 7, 1977 who held that Satya Narain Singh deceased held 2, 392 acres of land as surplus with him. Against this the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed on May 22, 1978. Notice was issued thereafter to the petitioner afresh in response to which he again raised objection including on the point whether the land in question was irrigated. These objections were rejected by the Prescribed Authority on August 28, 1980. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order also failed on January 22, 1983. 3. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged in the first place that the adjudication made on May 7, 1977 by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed in appeal on May 22, 1978 may not be said to bind the petitioner and that the notice relied upon by the Prescribed Authority may be treated as non est. The argument advanced is that Satya Narain Singh having died even before June 8, 1973, there was no question of his being teated as a tenure holder with reference to the relevant date and hence issue of notice in his name or the service thereof upon the petitioner be regarded as immaterial. Reference in this connection is relevant to Rule 19(2) framed under the Act which reads as under :- 19(2) "Where a tenure-holder dies before the publication to the general notice under Section 9, such publication shall be deemed to apply to his executor, administrator or other legal representatives and the Prescribed Authority may proceed to determine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, administrator, or other legal representatives were the tenure-holder." 4. The expression tenure-holder appearing in Rule 19 (2) has to be read, it is rightly submitted, in the context of the definition given to that expression under Section 3 (17); According to this definition the tenure holder means a person who is the holder of a holding. The expression 'holding is defined also in Section 3 (9) as meaning, inter alia the land held by a person as a bhumidhar or a sirdar. Section 5 (1) of the Act then lays down that with effect from commencement of the U.P. Act XVIII of 1973 on June 8, 1973 no tenure holder shall be entitled to holding the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. All this necessarily implies that there be a tenure holder living on the relevant date June 8, 1973, where the person holding the land surplus to have died prior to this date, it is manifest that he cannot be said to have held any land on the said date. It is only in case there be a person holding land as contemplated under the definition clause and Section 5 aforementioned on June 8, 1973, that Rule 19 (2) may be said to be attracted in case the death takes place subsequent to June 8, 1973 but before the publication of the general notice under Section 9 of the Act. The general notice under Section 9 of the Act is to be published after the commencement of the U.P. Act, 1973. Since in the present case Satya Narain Singh died admittedly on August 6, 1972, I am in agreement with the contention of the petitioners learned counsel that rule 19 (2) Could not be invoked for the purposes of adjudication of surplus land in reference to him on notice issued in his name subsequent to his death. This was also the view taken by a learned Single Judge in Virendra Singh and others v. The State of U.P. and others, (1981 ALJ 391). 5. The question arising next is as to what is the effect of the notice issued to Satya Naram Singh and the adjudication passed thereupon be found to be invalid. As I mentioned above the adjudication dated May 7, 1977 by the Prescribed Authority was in reference to Satya Narain Singh. 5. The question arising next is as to what is the effect of the notice issued to Satya Naram Singh and the adjudication passed thereupon be found to be invalid. As I mentioned above the adjudication dated May 7, 1977 by the Prescribed Authority was in reference to Satya Narain Singh. The finding was that he be deemed to have held land measuring 2, 392 acres as surplus. In that consecution a finding was also recorded with respect to the irrigated/unirrigated character of the land involved in dispute. Upon the matter coming up again before the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of notice issued subsequently to the petitioner, the decision earlier recorded in reference to Satya Narain Singh was cited and relied upon by the State. The Prescribed Authority seems to have relied upon that decision in arriving at the finding with respect to the irrigated/unirrigated character of the land. The Appellate Authority in the judgment dated January 22, 1983 has also referred to the same with approval, though it is true, that the appellate authority has made reference to other evidence as well in this behalf. Section 4-A of the Act prescribes the mode for determination of the irrigated land. As provided thereunder it is incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to examine the relevant Khasra for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 F. besides the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary. Rule 7 envisages that the Prescribed Authority shall make necessary enquiry, before preparing the C.H. Form No. 3. In this case none of these records seem to have been looked into by the prescribed Authority and later at the appellate stage. As appearing also from the decision of the Division Bench in Jaswant Singh v. State of U.P. and others (1979 A.L.J. 25) and the decision of another Division Bench in Kallu v. State of U.P. (1979 A.L.J. 1113) the Prescribed Authority could not ignore the relevant extracts of Khasra of the years referred to above and arrive at a finding with respect to the irrigated or unirrigated character of the lands, relying merely upon previous decisions recorded in reference to the notice issued to Satya Narain Singh deceased. The question of burden of proof in this behalf may not be considered strictly the fact being that the prescribed Authority has not looked into relevant documents either on his own or on the attention being drawn to the same from the side of the state. The decision on the point relevant may not in other words be arrived at legally without the relevant documents being examined in this behalf. It was open to the prescribed Authority in the circumstances to have called for the production of those documents by the state in the case these were not produced or made available at the instance of the petitioner. The hands of the Prescribed Authority are not tied on ground that the petitioner did not choose to produce those extracts. In the complete absence of the reasons for non production of the relevant documents, the finding With respect to the allegedly irrigated character of the land may not be claimed to be a finding in accordance with law. 6. For the discussion made in the above, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. The order of the prescribed Authority dated August 22, 1980 and the appellate authority dated January 22, 1983 are quashed. The prescribed Authority (respondent No. 3) is directed to re-examined the objections raised from the side of the petitioner including on the point of alleged irrigated/unirrigated character of the land involved in dispute in accordance with law and in the light of the observation contained in this judgment. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.