JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Harbhajan Singh against a decision of the First Additional District Judge Nainital, dated 30.7.1981 in an appeal under Section 23 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Lord Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Prescribed Authority Kashipur in Ceiling Case No. 51/22 of 1977-78, State v. Ranbir Singh held that the land, measuring 65 Bighas 15 Biswas in terms of unirrigated land was surplus in his holding, out of plot no. 182/328 Minjumla situated in village Madhya Hittul. Ranbir Singh, the tenure-holder, did not file any appeal but the petitioner Harbhajan Singh who claimed himself to be the owner and in possession over 95 bighas of land of the said plot no. 182/328 Minjumla, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Nanital which was heard by the First Additional District Judge Nanital. The appeal was dismissed with the finding that Harbhajan Singh could not object to the tenure-holders exercise of option for surplus land and in any event Harbhajan Singh had failed to establish his right, title or interest in any part of the plot no 182/328 Minjumla. It is against this decision that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has failed to consider the evidence on the record and has erroneously concluded that Harbhajan Singh had not been able to establish his right title or interest over 95 bighas of land of the aforesaid plot no. 182/328 Minjumla. His contention further was that he was in possession over the land since 1957 on the basis of an Iqrarnama executed by the tenure-holder Ranbir Singh for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and he was in possession over 95 bighas of land of the said plot ever since. It was further contended that the petitioner had made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in January 1970 for recording his possession over the said plot. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed his prayer on 16.10.1970 but ultimately by the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 27.4.1976 the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was quashed. He was directed to file a regular suit. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed his prayer on 16.10.1970 but ultimately by the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 27.4.1976 the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was quashed. He was directed to file a regular suit. Therefore, Harbhajan Singh had instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act in the Revenue Court to establish his claim over 95 bighas of land in the disputed plot. This suit was dismissed vide order dated 21.1.1978 but he had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division. This appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial court by the order dated 28.3.1981. After remand the Sub-Divisional Magistrate again dismissed the suit by his order dated 7.2.1983 and a fresh appeal had been filed before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division Nainital (Appeal No. 141/1982-83) which has been admitted and the ejectment of the petitioner has been stayed vide order dated 19.2.1983. Learned counsel contended that in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Commissioner Kumaun Division in regard to the title of the petitioner over the land in dispute and the matter being Sub-judice it could not be said that the question of the right, title or interest of the petitioner had been Finally decided. 3. When the matter came up before the First Additional District Judge the earlier appeal filed by the petitioner had been disposed of by the Additional Commissioner against the petitioner. Consequently, the order that was before the Additional District Judge was an order which upheld the decision of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate e.g., that the petitioner had failed to establish his right title or interest over the land in dispute. The subsequent order of remand was not there before the First Additional District Judge. Further even after remand the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the suit. Therefor an appeal had certainly been filed before the Additional Commissioner, but the appeal had not been disposed of. The position, therefore, is that there is no finding by the Court so far which stands in favour of the petitioner upholding his claim over land in dispute. Had there been any order in his favour, there would have been some change in the position. That cannot be a basis of allowing an appeal. The court below has to act on material which is substantive in nature. It cannot base his decision on speculations. Had there been any order in his favour, there would have been some change in the position. That cannot be a basis of allowing an appeal. The court below has to act on material which is substantive in nature. It cannot base his decision on speculations. It is obvious that when the order was passed by the First Additional District Judge there was no order passed by any Court upholding the claim of the petitioner. Even at present there is no order in his favour except that an appeal is pending before the Additional Commissioner. One does not know that would be the outcome of the appeal. On this ground the order of the Additional District Judge cannot be faulted. The Additional District Judge has also observed as above in his order. In my opinion, the mere pendency of an appeal before the Additional Commissioner is not a ground for interfering with the order passed by the Additional District Judge. 4. Another point contended on behalf of the petitioner was that the fresh notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act by the Prescribed Authority to the tenure-holder, Ranbir Singh on 20.3.1979 was beyond limitation and no land of the tenure-holder can be declared as surplus on the basis of the said notice. The tenure-holder had not filed any appeal against the decision of the Prescribed Authority. It was the tenure-holder who would have raked up this position and not the petitioner. The petitioner was claiming that he was holding 95 bighas of land from Ranbir Singh under an Iqrarnama and Ranbir Singh had no authority to indicate that the surplus land in regard to his holding be taken from the land which was settled with the petitioner. In order to supplement his stand, he took the plea that the notice was bad in law and it was barred by limitation. He cannot be permitted to raise this objection. He had no locus standi. This plea could be taken by the tenure-holder. No notice was sent to Harbhajan Singh and consequently, it was not open to him to challenge the validity of the notice served on the tenure-holder. The petitioner could succeed provided he had some right, title or interest in the land. The finding is that he had failed to prove his right, title or interest in respect of 95 bighas of land. The petitioner could succeed provided he had some right, title or interest in the land. The finding is that he had failed to prove his right, title or interest in respect of 95 bighas of land. In this view of the matter he would be deemed to be a stranger to the land and he would not be entitled to a notice. Even on the question of possession the order in his favour had been vacated. Consequently, the occasion for sending a notice to him would not a raise and further the notice sent to the tenure-holder could not be deemed to be a notice sent to him as well. Therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to raise the plea that the notice seat to the tenure-holder was bad in law or barred by limitation. In find no merits in this contention either. 5. Another contention raised was that the tenure-holder had disowned the disputed plot no. 182/328 Minjumla, and had also taken the stand that it was neither in his possession nor did it belong to him. The point has been considered by the court below, and it has given adequate reasons. It has been held by the First Additional District Judge that before the issuance of the fresh notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, on 20.3.1979 the tenure-holder had acquired ownership of 131 bighas 7 biswas of land of the aforesaid plot by virtue of judgment dated 30.11.1978 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The court below held that after the correction of the records the petitioner could not bind the tenure-holder by his earlier denial of having any ownership of plot no 182/328 Minjumla. The court below has rightly recorded that at the time of the Ceiling Case the tenure-holder was owner of 131 bighas 7 biswas of land of the disputed plot and had every right to give the said plot in his choice for being declared as surplus area out of the same. I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of the record in the above conclusion arrived at by the court below. 6. On the finding arrived at by the court below that the petitioner has failed to establish his right in respect of the land in dispute it is obvious that he cannot succeed. I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of the record in the above conclusion arrived at by the court below. 6. On the finding arrived at by the court below that the petitioner has failed to establish his right in respect of the land in dispute it is obvious that he cannot succeed. The mere fact that he has filed a suit and after the dismissal of his suit by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate there is an appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner does not warrant an interference with the order of the First Additional District Judge. There is no manifest error of law in his order. Consequently, this writ petition must fail. 7. In the result, therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.