JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The order passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated August 10, 1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority ex-parte. The Prescribed Authority declared an area 23.54 Acres as surplus land. 2. Notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to the petitioner and from the service report the Prescribed Authority concluded that personal service has been affected, but no appearance has been put in by the petitioner, consequently the ex-parte order was passed. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for setting it aside along with an application for condonation of delay. The Prescribed Authority took the view that notice was personally served and his contention was incorrect and the explanation given by him for condonation of delay was also obviously incorrect. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge dismissed the same agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the Prescribed Authority adding nothing to it. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner moved an application before the Prescribed Authority for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that no service was over affected on him and if the notice indicates that some signatures are there then the signatures must have been made by some importer and not by him. In support of the same the petitioner also filed an affidavit. It appears that no counter-affidavit to the same was filed. When such a plea was raised it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to make enquiry and after making enquiry the Prescribed Authority could have rejected the plea raised by the petitioner. In a case under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act where a person loses his land opportunity must have been given to him but the same was not done by the Prescribed Authority. The Additional District Judge also committed the very same mistake. In these circumstances the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. In a case under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act where a person loses his land opportunity must have been given to him but the same was not done by the Prescribed Authority. The Additional District Judge also committed the very same mistake. In these circumstances the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Additional dated September 22, 1981 (Annexure 8) and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated June 8, 1976 (Annexure 2) and dated August 10, 1981 (Annexure 6) are quashed and the Prescribed Authority is directed to restore the case miscellaneous application for setting aside ex-parte order to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above and to see whether personal service was affected on the petitioner and in fact he signed the notice and the explanation given by him was satisfactory or not and may decide the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order. In the circumstances of the case there will be no orders as to costs.