JUDGMENT K. N. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. K. Verma and also the Standing Counsel None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 Smt. Mahraja in spite of service of notice which was directed to be issued to her on 1231986 indicating therein that the petition itself will be heard and disposed of finally on this date of listing. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plot No. 1218 area 230 acres situate in village Raiganj, Pargana and Tahsil Nanpara, District Bahraich was recorded in the holding of the petitioner Smt. Nanka. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', was issued to (he tenure holder Smt. Nanka. She appears to have filed objection against the said notice on various grounds but her objection was rejected and the aforesaid plot No. 1228 area 2.31 acres was declared surplus by an order dated 29th November, 1975. It appears that Smt. Mahraja subsequently filed an objection under Section 11 of the Act on 1971979 claiming herself to be tenureholder of the aforesaid plot No. 1228. She had asserted that she had been in possession over the said plot for more than 20 years and a suit under Section 229 B/210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was also decided in her favour on 721975 and thereupon her name was also recorded in the revenue records in pursuance of the said order. It was alleged by her that petitioner Smt. Nankai name was wrongly recorded on plot No. 1228 which was declared surplus. A notice is said to been issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid objection filed by Smt. Mahraja. It has been averred by the petitioner that no notice was issued to her nor any notice was served upon her in respect of the aforesaid objection filed by Smt. Nanka and that the Prescribed Aurhority, (Ceiling) had decided the said objection ex parte on 31121982 against the petitioner declaring Smt. Mahraja to be the tenureholder of the said plot No. 1228. The learned Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) by the said ex parte order dated 311282 declared plot No. 467 area 3.81 acres of village Harbanshpur as surplus land. The learned Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) by the said ex parte order dated 311282 declared plot No. 467 area 3.81 acres of village Harbanshpur as surplus land. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner Smt. Nanka on coming to know on 1881983 about the said ex parte order dated 31121982 moved an application before the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) for setting aside the ex parte order. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) vide order dated 3 71984 after hearing the parties and the said ex parte order was set aside and the objection filed by opposite party No. 3 Smt. Mahraja under Section 11 (2) of the Act was restored to its original number for being decided on merits afresh. Aggrieved by this order Smt. Mahraja preferred appeal under Section 13 of the Act before the District Judge which was transferred for hearing to the 1st Addl. District Judge, Bahraich. This appeal was heard and allowed by Sri S. N. Singh, 1st Addl. District Judge, Bahraich, vide judgment and order dated 2511986. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) dated 371984 was set aside restoring the order dated 31121982 which was passed ex parte, in favour of Smt. Mahraja against the petitioner. These orders have now been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. K. Verma urged that the learned lower appellate Court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in hearing and allowing the appeal, vide order dated 2511985. 4. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an amendment brought in Sections 13, 20 and 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 by the U. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1986, promulgated by the Governor on January 13, 1986 and published in the U. P. Extraordinary Gazette dated January 13, 1986 at pages 2 and 3. 5. Referring to Section 4 of the said Ordinance learned counsel urged that from the date of commencement of the Ordinance i. e. 1311986, all the pending appeals under the provisions of Sections 13, 20 and 21 of the said Act would now be heard and decided by the Commissioner instead of the District Judge or the Addl. District Judges, Civil Judge or the Addl. Civil Judges. District Judges, Civil Judge or the Addl. Civil Judges. Learned counsel thus urged that the impugned order dated 2511986 passed by the learned I Addl. District Judge, Bahraich is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. I have carefully perused the provisions of the U. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1986. The amendment has been made under Sections 13, 20 and 21 of the Ceiling Act and for the words 'District Judge' whereever occurred, the word 'Commissioner' has been substituted vide Section 2 of the said Ordinance. Similarly, in subsection (2) of Section 38 of the Principal Act for the words 'District Judge' the word 'Commissioner' and for the words 'Addl. District Judge' 'Civil Judge' or 'Additional Civil Judge' the words 'Additional Commissioner' have been substituted, vide Section 3 of the said Ordinance. In the transitory provision contained in Section 4 it has been provided that all proceedings and appeals under Sections 13, 20 and 21 of the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance before any District Judge, Add!. District Judge, Civil Judge or Addl. Civil Judge, shall be transferred to the Commissioner and shall be disposed of by the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by this Ordinance, which came in force with effect from 1311986. It is thus evident that T Addl. District Judge. Bahraich acted illegally and without jurisdiction in hearing and deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner by the aforesaid impugned order dated 25th January, 1986. Learned Addl. District Judge could have taken care to see whether he had jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal which came up for hearing before him after the promulgation of the aforesaid Ordinance by the Governor on January 13, 1986. Had he taken a little care in the matter, the petitioner would not have been put to bear the expenses of this litigation in approaching this court on being aggrieved by his order. An illiterate litigant may not be aware about the enactments and Ordinances, promulgated from time to time, but a Court cannot plead ignorance about the law and especially the law relating to jurisdiction before proceeding to decide the case or appeal. It is obligatory on it to first ascertain whether it has got jurisdiction to decide the case or appeal or not. It is obligatory on it to first ascertain whether it has got jurisdiction to decide the case or appeal or not. The news with regard to the promulgation of the said Ordinance and the amendments made in the said Act had promptly appeared in the News Papers and also in other Media, and so it cannot be said that the learned I Addl. District Judge, Bahraich ignorantly proceeded to decide the said appeal. Apart from that, it has been averred in paras 18, 19 and 23 of the writ petition that at the time of the hearing of the appeal on 2511986 it was brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Ordinance No. 3 of 1986, the court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and the appeal should be transferred. The opposite party No. 1, however, decided the appeal without considering that the jurisdiction to decide the appeal was lost and it deserved to be transferred to the Commissioner. It is, thus, evident that the learned Addl. District Judge acted quite arbitrarily, unjustly and in the manner unwarranted in law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice and causing great sufference to the petitioner. 7. Thus in view of what has been said above, I find that the order passed by the learned I Addl. Distt. Judge is perse illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 8. Sri A. K. Verma. learned counsel for the petitioner had also urged that the learned lower appellate court had not perused the record of the case and wrongly observed that the petitioner had knowledge about the order dated 3112 1982. He had also pointed out that no registered notice was issued from the court of the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) to the petitioner and the alleged acknowledgement receipt (paper No. 82j was got manipulated by Opposite Party No. 3 and no reliance could be placed on it. Learned counsel referred to the observations made by the Prescribed Authority 'Ceiling) in his order dated 371984 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that no registered notice was sent to the petitioner Smt. Nanka and that the acknowledgement receipt filed on behalf of Smt. Mahraja is a fictitious document. It also does not bear the date of despatch on it. Learned counsel referred to the observations made by the Prescribed Authority 'Ceiling) in his order dated 371984 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that no registered notice was sent to the petitioner Smt. Nanka and that the acknowledgement receipt filed on behalf of Smt. Mahraja is a fictitious document. It also does not bear the date of despatch on it. Learned counsel urged that the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) had, after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, held that the aforesaid order dated 31121982 was an exparte order and he had thus rightly set aside that order and had directed the case to be restored and decided on merits. Referring to the aforesaid facts and evidence learned counsel pointed out that the I Addl. District Judge, apart from acting without jurisdiction, clearly erred in interfering with the order dated 371984 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) which was quite just and proper and called for no interference. 9. Since in view of what has been said earlier I find that the orderdated 2511986 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Bahraich is perse illegal and without jurisdiction and that the record of the case deserves to be remitted to the Commissioner for deciding the appeal on merits because of the transitory provisions contained in Section 4 of the Ordinance, and, as such, I do not want to express any opinion on the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Commissioner would proceed to hear and decide the appeal on merits considering the aforesaid arguments without being influenced by the decision rendered by the 1st Addl. District Judge. Bahraich in appeal, which is hereby quashed being perse illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 251198 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Bahraich is hereby quashed and the 1st Addl. District Judge, Bahraich is directed to remit the record of this appeal to the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad for deciding it afresh on merits expeditiously in accordance with the law and in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs.