JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25-8-83 and 17-8-83 passed by Additional District Judge, Deoria and orders dated 10-2-82 and 24-12-81 passed by the Prescribed Authority in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act' rejecting the application of the petitioners for leave to raise additional objections. 2. Roshan Rao was recorded tenure holder of certain plots in the district Deoria. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was served on Roshan Lal proposing to declare some of his land as surplus. Roshan Rao filed objection on 25-2-76 pleading that be executed a gift deed dated 3-2-70 in favour of Ramakant Rao and Om Prakash Rao, petitioners transferring 8.88 acres of his Bhumidari land to them and some others and on the basis of that gift deed mutation was effected in favour of the donee's on 12-8-70. The petitioners are sons of Jagannath Rao a nephew of the objector and as such that land cannot be included in his land in determining the surplus land. He raised some other pleas also in his objection petition. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 21-5-76 declared 7.22 acres of land as surplus with Roshan Rao. Against that order Roshan Rao filed an appeal. During the pendency of that appeal Roshan Rao died on 9-7-76. He bad executed a will on 24-3-76 bequeathing his bhumidhari properties in favour of the petitioners. Consequently upon the death of Roshan Rao the petitioners were substituted as legal representatives in respect of his bhumidhari land and the nephews of deceased Roshan Rao were substituted as his legal representatives in respect of his Sirdari land. Learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 14-2-77 dismissed the appeal and directed the Prescribed Authority for determining the surplus laud in the light of the choice given by the petitioners. Against that decision the petitioners filed writ petition No. 937 of 1977 which was allowed on 17-10-78 and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to determine the area of irrigated and unirrigated land and then to determine the surplus land. Before the High Court only the point, if the land was irrigated or not was pressed and the High Court, accordingly directed that other findings of the ceiling authorities shall stand. Before the High Court only the point, if the land was irrigated or not was pressed and the High Court, accordingly directed that other findings of the ceiling authorities shall stand. The case was thereafter taken up by the Prescribed Authority and petitioners moved an application for leave to take some additional grounds by amending original objection petition of Roshan Rao. It appears while the ceiling proceedings were going on, the villages in which the land of Roshan Rao was situated came under consolidation operation and chaks were allotted to the petitioners about the land of Roshan Rao. In the Consolidation proceedings the area of land allotted was reduced and most of the plots allotted were different from those comprised in the holdings of Roshan Rao. The Additional grounds sought to be added related to the consequence of consolidation operation. That application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 24-12-81- The petitioners then moved an application for review on 12-1-82 and that too was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 10-2-82. The petitioners first filed an appeal against the order dated 24-12-81 which was dismissed on 17-3-83 on the ground that no appeal was maintainable against the order rejecting the application for amendment The petitioners then filed an appeal against the order dated 12-1-82 passed on their review application and that was also dismissed on 25-8-83. The petitioners have now filed the writ petition for quashing the aforesaid four orders. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the points sought to be raised were based on the proceedings and orders passed in their consolidation operation and since the consolidation operation took place during the pendency of the ceiling proceedings the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority should have allowed them to raise these points. I find much fores in this argument. 4. The petitioners wanted to raise three main additional objections. One of them was that in the consolidation operation the area of their holdings has been reduced and in declaring the surplus land that fact may be taken into account. The other objection was that the petitioners have been allotted new Chaks and whether the land comprised in them is irrigated or not should be determined before declaring their land surplus. The third objection related to the applicability of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The other objection was that the petitioners have been allotted new Chaks and whether the land comprised in them is irrigated or not should be determined before declaring their land surplus. The third objection related to the applicability of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It appears from the order of the Prescribed Authority that he did not allow the petitioners to raise these objections simply on the ground that the case has been remanded by the High Court with the direction that the plots of village Mahui are irrigated or not is to be determined and, therefore, no additional point can be allowed to be raised. The Appellate Authority also rejected the prayer of the petitioner mainly on this ground. It has been held in Satyapal Singh v. State of U.P., 1979 AWC 217 (DB), that if there has been reduction in area by the consolidation proceedings in the holding of a tenure holder after June 8, 1973, it should be taken into account while determining the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date. It has been further held in this case at page 219 with regard to the decision of the consolidation authorities that : "Section 38-B Implies that findings or decisions given in any proceeding in any court, tribunal or authority will be binding upon the authorities under ceiling Act, if they are given after October 10, 1975. This clearly leads to the conclusion that the decisions of the authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are valid and are to be recognised in proceeding under the Ceiling Act, subject of course, to the effect of Section 38-N as explained above. In this view, it is evident that Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act white determining the Ceil sag area of a tenure holder cannot shut its eye or ignore the decisions given in proceedings under the Consolidation of Holding Act". 5. In Ram Lal v. State of U.P., 1978 AWC 713 and Uma Shankar v. State of U.P., 1980 AWC 487 also there are observations to the effect that the decision of Consolidation authorities can be taken into account in the ceiling proceedings under certain circumstances. 5. In Ram Lal v. State of U.P., 1978 AWC 713 and Uma Shankar v. State of U.P., 1980 AWC 487 also there are observations to the effect that the decision of Consolidation authorities can be taken into account in the ceiling proceedings under certain circumstances. All this shows that the points which have been sought to be raised on the basis of the decisions of the Consolidation Authorities and their effect on the rights of the petitioners, can be raised and decided in the Ceiling proceedings, 6. When the writ petition No. 737 of 1977 was decided on 17-10-78 there was no dispute relating to the effect of the decisions of the consolidation authorities before the Court. From the facts alleged by the petitioners in the affidavit filed on their behalf. It appears that those decisions came in existence after the decisions in the aforesaid writ petition. There was no direction to the effect in that judgment of the Court, If any changes take place after the judgment due to consolidation operation etc. no objection could be raised by the petitioners on their basis. A legal representative of a deceased party can raise these objections which were open to that party. Thus the objections of the petitioners being legal representatives of Roshan Rao could not be rejected on this ground also. If the rights of a party are affected or altered during pendency of the case subsequent events can be taken notice of and the consequential pleas are allowed to be raised. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, therefore, committed an error apparent on the face of record in not allowing the petitioners to raise the aforesaid objections. It, therefore, appears to be a fit case in which interference should be made by this Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority and the Prescribed Authority are quashed. The case is sent back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the additional objections raised by the petitioners in their application (Annexure-VI) in accordance with the law. In the circumstances of the case there no order as to costs.