ORDER K. N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31-1-1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Tarabganj, Gonda by which the Prescribed Authority dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner under S. 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) on the ground that the provisions contained under Section 14(3) to 14(7) of the Act was deleted by an amendment made in the Act in the year 1975. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:- It has been averred in para 1 of the writ petition that Bhaiyya Bhagoti Prasad Singh the recorded tenure-holder, had transferred certain plots including plot Nos. 948, 949, 950, 951, 953, 969, 964 and 938 through sale deed dated 23-6-1969 in favour of the petitioner for adequate consideration and ever since the petitioner is in possession over the same. The petitioner had also claimed that apart from aforesaid sale deed, he became Sirdar in respect of one plot No. 585 in terms of compromise decree dated 22-1-1960 passed by Judicial Officer, Tarabganj, district Gonda. It has further been averred that mutation in the name of the petitioner was effected in the revenue vide order dated 29-10-1969 and the petitioner is in possession over the said plots as tenure-holder. During consolidation operations the petitioner's name was recorded in the village and that chak was also proposed in his name by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as against land in dispute. In para 4 of the writ petition it has been averred that in proceedings under the Ceiling Act certain land belonging to the petitioner has been declared surplus land although the recorded tenure-holder had transferred the land to the petitioner. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been asserted that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) with the result that the petitioner could not put in appearance in the case before the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) which was decided against Bhagoti Prasad Singh. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been asserted that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) with the result that the petitioner could not put in appearance in the case before the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) which was decided against Bhagoti Prasad Singh. Since the petitioner was not a party to the said case, and, as such, he would not be bound by that order and that when he came to know about the said order declaring the petitioner's land surplus, he preferred objection under S. 14(3) of the Act on 15-2-1975 asserting that he is tenure-holder of the said plots and Bhagoti Prasad Singh has got no right, title or interest therein. While the said objection was pending, the provision of Section 14(3) of the Act was deleted. Thus, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), by the impugned order dated 31-1-1976 abated the objection filed by the petitioner under S. 14(3) of the Act. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid provisions contained under S. 14(3) of the Act stood deleted by U.P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975, but,the claim of the petitioner, as was set out in the said objection, could be dealt with and considered under S. 11(2) of the Act and the objection could very well be considered by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) under said provision and it should have been determined on merits. Learned counsel referred to Annexure No. `A', which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit dated 21-5-1981 filed by the petitioner to indicate that similar objections of other tenure-holders were decided by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) under S. 11(2) of the Act. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had not filed any objection under S. 11(2) after the deletion of the provisions contained under S. 14(3) of the Act, nor he had moved any application before the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) for treating his objection under S. 14(3) to be one under S. 11(2) of the Act, and, as such, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) committed no error in ordering the objection filed under S. 14(3) of the Act to abate by the impugned order dated 31-1-1976. Learned standing counsel further urged that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered under S. 11(2) of the Act because the disputed land has already been notified to be surplus land by notification issued under S. 14(1) and it has vested in State by virtue of the said notification. 4. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I find substance in what has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. Similar question cropped up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Baldeo Singh v. State of U.P., 1980 Luck LJ 31. According to the majority view expressed in the said decision an objection can be entertained under S. 11(2) of the Act even after the surplus land had been notified under S. 14(1) of the Act. The deletion of sub- s. (3) of Section 14 of the Act will not affect the maintainability of that objection. It was further observed that : "A person whose right has been affected by an order of the Tribunal without giving him an opportunity of being heard can, in my view, seek redress before that authority and resist his dispossession. He can contend that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the Collector can lawfully take possession of the land from him without adjudicating upon his rights therein and the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority was wrong. In the case in hand the Prescribed Authority had passed an order dated 18th October, 1974 determining the surplus land in relation to the opposite party No. 5. The present petitioners preferred an objection on 18th September, 1975 before the Prescribed Authority asserting that the land declared as surplus land of the opposite party No. 5 is in fact their land and not the land of the opposite party No. 5 and could not, therefore, be declared as surplus land. This objection could be entertained under section 11(2) even after the surplus land had been notified under Section M(l) of the Act. The deletion of the sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act will not affect the tenability of that objection." 5. This objection could be entertained under section 11(2) even after the surplus land had been notified under Section M(l) of the Act. The deletion of the sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act will not affect the tenability of that objection." 5. It is, thus, evident that in view of above decision of the Full Bench, the claim of the petitioner has got to be determined on merits by the Prescribed Authority with regard to land in dispute although it was declared surplus and was notified under S. 14(1) of the Act. In my opinion, after deletion of sub-s. (3) of S. 14 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) should have proceeded to decide the claim of the petitioner treating the objection to be one under S. 11(2) of the Act, under which the objection could be entertained and decided on merits. Since the provision of sub-s. (3) of S. 14 of the Act was deleted, under which the petitioner had filed his objection, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to have appropriately amended his objection for being treated under S. 11(2) of the Act. Even without a formal application for amendment, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) should have proceeded to decide the objection treating it to be one under S. 11(2) of the Act because wrong mentioning of the Section or not mentioning a correct section in the objection could not itself disentitle the objector to the appropriate relief which the Prescribed Authority could grant in accordance with law. Undisputedly the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) had jurisdiction at the time when the objection was filed to entertain and decide the objection on merits under S. 14(3) with regard to the claim of the petitioner, which he had urged in his objection in respect of the land in dispute stating that he is tenure-holder and in possession over the land in question and not the opposite party No. 5. The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) had also jurisdiction to entertain the objection under S. 11(2) of the Act and to determine the claim of unrecorded tenure-holder. The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) had also jurisdiction to entertain the objection under S. 11(2) of the Act and to determine the claim of unrecorded tenure-holder. Thus, when the objection could be maintained under S. 14(3) as well as under S. 11(2) of the Act by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) should have proceeded to treat this objection of the petitioner to be one under S. 11(2) of the Act for being determined on merits instead of rejecting it on the ground that the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 14 has been deleted by the aforesaid Ordinance. 6. In this view of the matter I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned standing counsel which he had urged that since no prayer was made by the petitioner for treating his objection to be one under S. 11(2) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority could not proceed and decide it on merits under that provision. The petitioner may however move an application for amending his objection which he had filed under S. 14(3) of Act to be treated as one under S. 11(2) of the Act bringing on record such other material facts which he may like to urge in support of his claim to be determined under S. 11(2) of the Act. 7. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 31-1-1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) is quashed and he is directed to restore the objection filed by the petitioner and treating it to be one under Section 11(2) of the Act proceed to decide it on merits after giving full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their cases. 8. No order as to costs.