JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 1971980 passed by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in appeal under Section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short, the Act). Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows: 2. A notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to Lalta Prasad, opposite party No.1, wherein his total land was mentioned to be of an area of 26.09 acres and land measuring 6.722 acres was proposed to be declared as surplus. An objection was filed by opposite party No. 1 in which he pleaded, inter alia, that he had transferred 8 acres of land of his holding to Sri Mulayam Singh and Sri Ram Singh through registered sale deed. It was also contended that his land is unirrigated and the same has been wrongly treated as irrigated land. The saledeed was of a date after 24th January, 1971. The Prescribed Authority after framing necessary issues held the aforesaid sale deed is not a bona fide transaction, and, as such, is liable to be ignored having been executed after the prescribed date, i.e. 2411971. The Prescribed Authority declared an area of 6.722 acres as surplus land vide order dated 721975. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party No.1 preferred appeal. This appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 951975 for considering the question afresh about the land being irrigated or unirrigated. The saledeed in question was found not to be a bona fide transaction and on this question the finding of the Prescribed Authority was confirmed. After the remand of the case the prescribed authority, vide order dated 2321976, again declared an area of 6.722 acres of land as surplus land. A true copy of this order dated 2321976 has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. This order was challenged by opposite party No.1 in appeal which was registered as Rent Appeal No.98 of 1976 and was disposed of by the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Kheri vide judgment and order dated 1281976. The appeal was partly allowed and the surplus area was reduced from 6 722 acres to 6.152 acres in terms of irrigated land (vide Annexure No.5). The appeal was partly allowed and the surplus area was reduced from 6 722 acres to 6.152 acres in terms of irrigated land (vide Annexure No.5). This surplus land was notified in the official gazette under Section 14 of the Act and C.L.H. No. 6 was issued to the Tehsildar for taking possession over the surplus land. The plots which were declared surplus vide order dated 1281976 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Kheri are indicated in his order contained in Annexure No.5. The Tehsildar could not take possession of the surplus land as it was revealed that the plots which were declared surplus were allotted in the chaks given to other tenureholders during consolidation operations. It may be mentioned that the orders passed by the Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Kheri declaring the land measuring 6.152 acres of the holding of opposite party No. 1 became final prior to the allotment of chaks by the consolidation authorities as it was not challenged by the tenureholder. However, possession over the same could not be taken by the Tehsildar as the same were allotted in chaks of some other tenureholders. Learned Tehsildar, thus, submitted his report on 1111978 that some other plots of the holding of opposite party No.1 declared as surplus land and necessary orders be passed. The Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the opposite party No.1 asking him to indicate as to which plots should be declared as surplus in place of those plots which were earlier declared surplus but were allotted in chaks of other tenureholders. The opposite party No.1 was, thus, required to indicate his choice in respect of land measuring 6.152 acres. The opposite party No.1 filed objection dated 1811979 wherein he stated that he has now got a total land measuring 20.25 acres out of which 12.76 acres is irrigated and 949 acres of land is unirrigated land. He, thus, claimed that no land can be declared surplus. The Prescribed Authority after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case passed order dated 2921980 and declared certain plots mentioned in the order measuring 6.152 acres, as surplus land. Aggrieved by this order dated 2921980 (Annexure No.9) the opposite party No.1 filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act which was heard and allowed by the Illrd Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur vide order dated 1971980 (Annexure No.10). Aggrieved by this order dated 2921980 (Annexure No.9) the opposite party No.1 filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act which was heard and allowed by the Illrd Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur vide order dated 1971980 (Annexure No.10). After setting aside the order dated 2921980 the Prescribed Authority was directed by the learned lower appellate court to issue a fresh notice under Section 10 to the opposite party No.1 and to redetermine surplus land by taking into account the altered situation and the changed area of the holding of the opposite party No.1 during consolidation operations. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. Learned standing counsel urged that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the ceiling proceedings were initiated and finalised prior to the carvation of chaks in the present case and if any area was reduced in the proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the same would not affect the order passed by the ceiling authorities by which land measuring 6.152 acres was declared to be surplus land. Learned counsel urged that the holding of the opposite party No.1 as it stood on 861973 is to be taken into consideration while determining ceiling area and surplus land. Learned standing counsel further urged that the saledeed in question was held not to be a bona fide transaction, and as such, it was rightly ignored by the ceiling authorities. During consolidation operations the name of the transferees were recorded and, thus, the area of the holding of Opposite party No.1 was reduced. The reduction in area of the holding of opposite party No.1 during consolidation operations on account of recording of the. names of the transferees as tenure holders thereof or on account of reduction in area while making allotment of chaks cannot be taken into consideration for redetermination of ceiling area and surplus land of the land holding of opposite party No.1. 4. In reply learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 urged that if area of a holding during the consolidation operations is reduced, the same has got to be taken into consideration by the ceiling authorities. 4. In reply learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 urged that if area of a holding during the consolidation operations is reduced, the same has got to be taken into consideration by the ceiling authorities. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon a decision in Satya Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1979 AWC 217) wherein it has been held that reduction in area brought about by the consolidation proceedings in the holding of a tenureholder after June 8, 1973 can be taken into account while, determining the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date. This decision, in my opinion, is of no assistance to the opposite party No.1. The facts of the said case were altogether different. It appears that in the said case the petitioner had held land measuring 48 Bighss 1 Biswas 10 biswansis, but during consolidation proceedings the area of his holding was reduced to 42 Bighas 5 Biswas 10 Biswansis alone as he was allotted chak of that area as against the land of his original holding. The ceiling authorities had, however, ignored the reduction in the area as a result of allotment of chaks in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and proceeded to determine the ceiling area of the petitioner on the basis that he had held land measuring 48 Bighas 1 Biswa 10 Biswansis. Thus, on these facts it was held that the ceiling authorities had to take into account the reduction in the area of his holding brought about by the consolidation proceedings. 5. The law laid down by the Division Bench in Satya Pal Singh's case (supra) would be applicable in those cases where the consolidation authorities have passed the final order before the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) passes his order under Section 12 of the Act. In the instant case the Consolidation authorities passed the order long after the passing of the order dated 1281976 by which petitioner's land measuring 6.152 acres was declared surplus in appeal under Section 13 of the Act and the said order was not challenged and it became final and binding on the petitioner. In this view of the matter the tenureholder cannot take any advantage of the subsequent order passed by the Consolidation authorities by which area of this holding and allotted land was decreased. 6. In this view of the matter the tenureholder cannot take any advantage of the subsequent order passed by the Consolidation authorities by which area of this holding and allotted land was decreased. 6. In the present case it is also relevant to notice that in the proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act, the petitioner's contention to the effect that he had executed a sale deed with regard to 8 acres of his land and the same be excluded from his holding was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority and it was held that the sale deed is not a bona fide transaction and it was ignored. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority became final on that point. The appellate court vide (order) dated 1281976 finally held that land measuring 6.152 acres is liable to be declared as surplus and the plots mentioned in the order dated 12876 were declared as surplus. During consolidation operations the transferees' names were got mutaed and thus, the area of the holding of opposite party No.1 Was reduced. The reduction of this area during the consolidation operations, therefore, cannot be of any advantage to opposite party No.1 because the order dated 1281976 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Kheri already became final. Since during ceiling operations the plots which were declared surplus were allotted in the chaks of other tenureholders, and, as such, possession could not be taken by the Tehsildar on the basis of C.L.H. Form 6 issued by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling). The Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), therefore, rightly proceeded to declare some other plots of the holdings of opposite party No.1 to be surplus land. The order dated 2921980 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. He has passed this order after giving notice to the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1had urged that this order could not be passed by the Prescribed Authority as it would amount to review of his earlier order by which he has declared 6.722 acres of land as surplus land. I am unable to agree with this contention. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1had urged that this order could not be passed by the Prescribed Authority as it would amount to review of his earlier order by which he has declared 6.722 acres of land as surplus land. I am unable to agree with this contention. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case referred to above, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) was required to declare some other plots of the holding of opposite party No.1 to be surplus land because the plots which were declared surplus were allotted in the chaks of other tenureholders. Such an order could be passed in exercise of powers under Sections 13A and 38A of the Ceiling Act. 8. The learned appellate court has apparently erred in directing the Prescribed Authority to redetermine surplus land after taking into consideration the change of the area during consolidation proceedings in respect of the holding of opposite party No.1. The view taken by him is not sustainable. Thus, in view of what has been said above, I find that the order dated 1971980 passed by the Illrd Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri deserves to be quashed being absolutely wrong and it is accordingly quashed and the order dated 2921980 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) deserves to be maintained. It is, however, clarified that if the opposite party No.1 would like to indicate his choice in respect of certain plots declared as surplus vide order dated 2921980 to be retained by him in his ceiling areand in its place indicates some other plots to be declared as surplus land he can do so within two months from today. If any such choice is indicated by the opposite party No.1, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) will pass orders declaring those plots to be surplus land instead of plots already declared surplus vide order dated 2921980. After expiry of aforesaid period the order dated 2921980 would not be amended and would be enforced. 9. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 1971980 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur deserves to be quashed being unwarranted in law. It is accordingly quashed. 10. No order as to costs.