JUDGMENT S.D. Agrawal, J.- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners were all members of the Indian National Army, popularly known as I.N.A. In view of public services rendered by the petitioners, certain plots which were originally banjar, were allotted in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners spent huge amount in re-claiming the said land and made the said plots cultivable and it is alleged that thereafter the petitioners have been carrying on the cultivation therein as sirdars of the said plots. The notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act to the recorded tenure holder, namely, Desh Bhakt, Dharamvir, sons of Brij Behari Lal and others. No notice was issued to the petitioners. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus in the hands of Desh Bhakt, Dharamvir and others. 2. Prior to the proceedings taken under this Act, Desh Bhakt and Dharamvir and others filed suit No. 27 of 1955 in the court of Munsif, Bulandshahar for possession over the plots in dispute. In the suit it was alleged that Desh Bhakt and others were bhumidhars and sirdars of the said plots. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Against the order dismissing the suit, Desh Bhakt and others filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Bulandshahar being Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1971 (Sec.). The District Judge by his judgment dated 28th August, 1965 decreed the suit and held that Desh Bhakt and others were sirdars of the land dispute. It was also further held that the petitioners got no right in the land in dispute and decreed the suit for possession. Against the order dated 28th August, 1965 a second appeal No. 3380 of 1965 was filed in this Court. This court ultimately by an order dated 14.10.1976 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of Desh Bhakt and others. This court took the view that the plaintiff of that suit, namely, Desh Bhakt and others have not become bhumidhars and sirdars of the land in dispute and were not tenure-holders thereof. The ultimate result of the above prcoeeding was that in respect of plots in dispute, it is held that Desh Bhakt and others had no right whatsoever. 3. This court took the view that the plaintiff of that suit, namely, Desh Bhakt and others have not become bhumidhars and sirdars of the land in dispute and were not tenure-holders thereof. The ultimate result of the above prcoeeding was that in respect of plots in dispute, it is held that Desh Bhakt and others had no right whatsoever. 3. As already mentioned above, notices were issued to Desh Bhakt and others under Section 10 (2) of the Act. No notices were issued the petitioners whose rights had been substantiated by the ultimate decision of this court dated 14th October, 1976. 4. The petitioners, therefore, when they came to know of the order passed by the ceiling proceedings declaring their land as surplus filed objections under Section 11 (2) of the Act before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority dismissed the objection on the ground that the order against Desh Bhakt etc. who were recorded tenure-holders had become final and that the petitioners had no right to file any objection and if at all they can file a suit under Section 229 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for declaration of their rights. This order was passed by the prescribed authority on 18th August, 1979. This order according to the petitioners was passed ex parte and as such they moved an application for setting aside this order. This application for setting aside the order dated 18th August 1979 was dismissed on 6th August, 1980. The petitioners thereafter filed Appeal No. 157 of 1980 challenging both the orders dated 18th August, 1979 and 6th August, 1980. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as barred by time on 14th March, 1983 as it was of the view that the appeal was barred by time taking into consideration the fact that the initial order was passed on 18th August, 1979 which order was passed after hearing the parties. Aggrieved by the order dated 14th March, 1983 the present petition has been filed in this court. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 14th March, 1983 the present petition has been filed in this court. 5. In Dilbagh Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1978 Allahabad Law Journal, page 717, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that the persons who claim to be the tenure-holders and who having come to know of the declaration of their land as surplus land of some other person can file an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act and can get adjudication thereon as required by Section 12 of the Act. This authority fully applies to the present case. After the petitioners' right have been declared in respect of the plots in dispute by this court, the petitioners had a right to file objections under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Since the land in dispute had been declared surplus in the hands of some other persons, namely, Desh Bhakt and others, the prescribed authority should have accepted this objection and decided it on merits. It has clearly erred in law in not deciding the objections on merits and dismissing it on the ground that the petitioners should be asked to file a suit under Section 229 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The view taken by the prescribed authority is manifestly erroneous. The petitioners had filed an appeal both against the order dated 18th August, 1979 as well as 6th August, 1980 and as such the appellate court has also erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioners 'as time barred as the appeal so far as the order dated 6th August, 1980 was concerned, was within time. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 18th August, 1979, 6th August, 1980 and 14th March, 1983 are hereby quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the petitioners' objections under Section 11 (2) of the Act on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.