JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J.- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the judgment of the First Additional District Judge Ghaziabad, dated 5th November, 1981, dismissing the Revenue Appeal No. 4 of 1981 filed by the petitioner. By this very judgment the First Additional District Judge, Dehradun, also dismissed Revenue Appeal No. 5 of 1981, Karan Singh v. The State of U.P. and others. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. By an order passed in pursuance of the notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued to Trilok Singh, the petitioner, 18 Bigha 12 Biswas 1 Biswansi land was declared as surplus on 13-9-1976. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of an appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Prescribed Authority was confirmed. The petitioner was, however, given right to give his choice which he exercised by specifying the plots which could be declared as surplus. His choice was accepted by the Prescribed Authority on 24-2-1978. Subsequently, the State of U.P. filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act that some of the plots which had been declared surplus since had gone to some other persons in the consolidation proceedings, therefore, some other plots should be declared surplus. The State of U.P. claimed that the choice received by the petitioner could not be worked out on account of his subsequent collusive consolidation proceedings taken between the petitioner and Sardar Karan Singh. 3. On 10-10-1980, the petitioner presented an application stating therein that his land since had been reduced in consolidation proceedings he should be given the benefit of this reduction. The application of the State moved under Section 13-A was also opposed by the petitioner. By the judgment dated 23-1-1981, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the State filed under Section 13-A and rejected the one which had been made by the petitioner for reduction of the area. By this very order, the third application of Karan Singh claiming his right over some of the plots declared surplus was also rejected. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner Trilok Singh filed Revenue Appeal No. 4 of 1981, whereas the appeal filed by Karan Singh was Revenue Appeal No. 5 of 1981. By this very order, the third application of Karan Singh claiming his right over some of the plots declared surplus was also rejected. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner Trilok Singh filed Revenue Appeal No. 4 of 1981, whereas the appeal filed by Karan Singh was Revenue Appeal No. 5 of 1981. Both of these appeals had been dismissed by means of the impugned judgment. 4. Coming up to this Court by means of the present writ, the petitioner Trilok Singh contended that the learned Additional District Judge Committed an error in confirming the order of the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the application of the State Government under Section 13-A was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as the area in consolidation proceedings of the petitioner Trilok Singh had been reduced, the Ceiling Authorities were bound to give effect to it by holding that the area of land liable to be declared surplus had to be reduced. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel. In my opinion, the judgments of the two courts below allowing the application of the Stare of U.P. do not suffer from any error requiring interference by this Court. It had been found by the Prescribed Authority that after the land had been declared surplus, the petitioner Trilok Singh entered into a collusive compromise with Karan Singh and permitted his land, which had been given in the choice for being declared as surplus, to be given to Karan Singh. The entire proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities were collusive and by entering into a compromise the petitioner was only trying to get over the Act and save the land in respect of which the State had become entitled to on account of the final declaration of the same being surplus. The learned Additional District Judge also did not accept this theory of the petitioner of the land having passed away from him due to the consolidation proceedings, which took place subsequent to the determination of the ceiling area, in favour of a third person. It was rightly held by the learned Additional District Judge that if this type of case was accepted, it would open the gate for many fraudulent transactions in any area where certain land has been declared surplus with a tenure holder. It was rightly held by the learned Additional District Judge that if this type of case was accepted, it would open the gate for many fraudulent transactions in any area where certain land has been declared surplus with a tenure holder. A tenure holder can always manage to see that rights of third persons are accepted in respect of part of the area and thereby escape the order passed against him by the Ceiling Authorities. The Additional District Judge found on merits and established from the circumstances that the proceedings before the consolidation authorities depriving the petitioner of certain area of land belonging to him were collusive and fraudulent. In this view of the matter, the authorities below rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for reducing the ceiling area from 18 Bigha 1 Biswansi. 6. The aforesaid area had been declared surplus on 13-9-1976 by the Prescribed Authority and was thereafter affirmed in appeal filed by the petitioner. The State of U.P. was entitled to take possession of the aforesaid area. The State would have taken possession of the land given in choice by the petitioner as surplus covering tho aforesaid area, but for the collusive compromise that was entered into by the petitioner with Karan Singh in the consolidation proceedings. In this background, the Prescribed Authority was right in allowing the application of the State of U.P. for substituting the new plots in place of those which had been earlier given in choice by the petitioner and had been accepted by the Prescribed Authority on 24-2-1978. The Prescribed Authority had in his order given the plots which were to be taken possession of by the State Government declared as surplus. The learned Additional District Judge was fully justified in holding, that the appeal of the petitioner had no merits. 7. Whether Section 13-A strictly applied or not is not a question to detain us in the present case. The learned Additional District Judge was right in holding that for doing justice and implementing the provisions of law of taking over possession of the land declared surplus, the Prescribed Authority had ample jurisdiction and power to substitute new plots in place of those which cannot be taken possession of became of the device adopted by the petitioner himself. 8. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.