JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J.- This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Jhansi, dated 7.7.82, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner which had been preferred by him against the decision of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. It appears that the proceedings of declaring excess land in the hands of Malkhan Singh, the petitioner, were started by means of a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority found on 31.7.1978 that 13.80 acres in irrigated terms was excess with the petitioners. He preferred an appeal which was partly allowed and the area was reduced to 5.54 acres. Against this judgment of the Civil Judges, the petitioner and the State of U.P. both filed two separate writ petitions. Both of these writ petitions were rejected on 20.1.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the application for reduction of the land declared surplus under the ceiling proceedings on the ground that as in the consolidation proceedings the land held by him had been reduced in the area given to him as a repercussion of the consolidation proceedings. This application was opposed by the State of U.P. The Prescribed Authority rejected it on 6.4.1981. Thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed on 7.7.82. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The ground that arose before the authorities below and still arises before me is about the maintainability of the application by which the petitioner desired the area of land declared as surplus in the ceiling proceedings to be reduced. The petitioner's main argument was that as the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are not finalised till the stage of Section 14, the same proceedings would be deemed to be continued by taking that fact into account the Prescribed Authority had to reduce the area when the fact was brought to his notice. I do not find substance in this submission. The Prescribed Authority decided the case on 31.7.78 ana the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on 20.1.81. The proceedings of the land to be declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner became final when the appeal was decided against the order of the Prescribed Authority on October 10, 1979. The Prescribed Authority decided the case on 31.7.78 ana the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on 20.1.81. The proceedings of the land to be declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner became final when the appeal was decided against the order of the Prescribed Authority on October 10, 1979. The Prescribed Authority appointed under the Act is not entitled to reduce the area once declared surplus finally. The area which had been declared surplus by the appellate court on 10.10.79 had been maintained by the High Court on 20.1.81. After the judgment of the appellate court had been maintained, the present prayer for reduction of the area was misconcieved. The petitioner could not get it done under Section 13-A inasmuch as the said proceedings apply only when there is an apparent error on the face of the record. In the instant case, there was no such error, moreover, when the date on which the consolidation authorities reduced the area is not conspicuously mentioned and was neither mentioned in the application making a prayer for reduction nor in the writ petition filed in this court. 5. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.