JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J.- By this petition orders passed by the authorities constituted under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has been challenged. Although number of arguments have been raised to assail the correctness of orders passed by the two authorities it is not necessary to examine them as in supplementary affidavit filed on 27th February, 1980 it was stated on behalf of petitioner that no notice was issued to all the tenure-holders, who were recorded in the revenue records on relevant dates. As plea was not specific time was granted again and another supplementary affidavit was filed on 1st August, 1984. In paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that no notice was issued to Radhey Govind, Ram Kishore, Ajodhya Prasad, Virendra Prasad, and Phool Chand sons of Ram Narain, real brother of petitioner. It is further averred that name of these persons are entered in relevant revenue records from the very beginning. They were also recorded in the khatauni extracts on 9th June, 1973. Although time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file supplementary counter-affidavit but none has been filed. It is not necessary to grant any further time as this much is admitted in the earlier affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party that no notice was issued to these persons who are mentioned in the supplementary affidavit. Even a question and answer from Ceiling authorities has been filed as Annexure to the supplementary affidavit filed in 1980. It also indicates that no notice was issued to these persons. The legal affect of non-issuing of notice to persons who are entered in revenue records as tenure holders came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Shantanam Kumar v. State of U.P. (1979 Allahabad Law Journal 1174). While interpreting Rule 8 of the Ceiling Act it was held that prescribed Authority was bound to serve notice on persons who were entered in revenue records. The failure on part of the prescribed authority to issue such notice vitiates the entire proceeding. As admittedly no notice was issued to the recorded tenure-holders the entire proceedings initiated for declaration of surplus land under the Ceiling Act was invalid. 2. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the District Judge Prescribed Authority are quashed. As admittedly no notice was issued to the recorded tenure-holders the entire proceedings initiated for declaration of surplus land under the Ceiling Act was invalid. 2. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the District Judge Prescribed Authority are quashed. The Prescribed Authority shall initiate the proceedings after issuing notice to all the recorded tenure-holders afresh. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.