ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 20-2-1981 and 7-10-1978 (Annexures `4' and `2') and the proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 25-2-1975 declaring an area of 3.39 acres as surplus land as calculated in pursuance of the notice under S. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act). 2. The admitted facts are that proceedings under the Act commenced and the petitioner filed an objection on receipt of notice under S. 10(2) of the Act that no land of the petitioner deserves to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 25-2-1975 declared an area of 3.39-1 /2 acres irrigated land as surplus in plot No. 490 situated in Village Kolhui. An appeal against that order was filed and was pending, when the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment Act No. 20 of 1976) (for short the Amending Act) came into force and fresh notice in view of S. 31(3) of the Amending Act was issued to the petitioner for redetermination of the surplus land. She filed an objection that she was not holding any surplus land and further she alleged that even though redetermination was sought to be made but other consequential proceedings for taking possession in pursuance of the order dated 25-2-1975, in earlier proceedings, cannot proceed and deserves to be abated in view of S. 31(3) of the Amending Act. 3. The Prescribed Authority held, by order dated 30-11-76, in pursuance of the second notice issued under S. 31(1) of the Amending Act, that an area of 7.72 acres of the petitioner's land may be declared as surplus. In the meanwhile proceedings for obtaining possession from the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 25-2-75, passed as a result of the first notice commenced. By that time the petitioner's appeal against that order has also been dismissed on 12-12-1976. In the meanwhile proceedings for obtaining possession from the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 25-2-75, passed as a result of the first notice commenced. By that time the petitioner's appeal against that order has also been dismissed on 12-12-1976. The petitioner alleged that delivery of possession in pursuance of the earlier order dated 25-2-75 consequent upon the first notice cannot be obtained as against that the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 12-10-1976 and the said appeal was pending before 10-10-1975 as provided by the Transitory Provisions of S. 31(2) of the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976. In any view of the matter, the order determining surplus land in relation to the petitioner as tenure- holder has been made in pursuance of the first notice before 10-10-1975 as provided by Transitory Provisions of S. 31(3) of the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976. Hence all other proceedings consequent upon the earlier order would be deemed to have abated on the said date and as a result no delivery of possession could be obtained in pursuance of the first order but the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 erred in holding otherwise. 4. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that the impugned orders were correct and that sub-secs. (2),and (3) of the Transitory Provisions of S. 31 of the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 would not apply. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not without substance. It is convenient to set out below the relevant statutory provisions of S. 31 of the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 (so far as it is relevant for this petition) :- "31. Transitory Provisions : (1) All proceedings under sub-secs. (3) to (7) of S. 14 of the principal Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, pending before any Court or authority immediately before the date of such commencement shall be deemed to have abated on such date. Transitory Provisions : (1) All proceedings under sub-secs. (3) to (7) of S. 14 of the principal Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, pending before any Court or authority immediately before the date of such commencement shall be deemed to have abated on such date. (2) Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before January 17, 1975, and the Prescribed Authority is required to redetermine the surplus land under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, then notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, every appeal under S. 13 of the Principal Act or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order, and pending immediately before the tenth day of October, 1975, shall be deemed to have abated on the said date. (3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the Principal Act before the tenth day of October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the Principal Act), may, at any time within a period of two years from the said date, redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the Principal Act as amended by this Act, whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land." 6. A bare reading of S. 31(2) and (3) of the Amending Act would indicate that in case the proceeding was pending in appeal in pursuance of the first notice before 10-10-1975 or an order of determining surplus land in relation to the tenure-holder was made under the Act before 10-10-1975, in that event those proceedings pending shall be deemed to have abated even though the appeal was decided later on. In the instant case in pursuance of the first notice under the Principal Act the determination of the surplus land was made by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 25-2-1976 and thereafter an appeal was filed which was pending before 10th day of October, 1975. In the instant case in pursuance of the first notice under the Principal Act the determination of the surplus land was made by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 25-2-1976 and thereafter an appeal was filed which was pending before 10th day of October, 1975. All those proceedings including, that of obtaining possession in pursuance of the order of the Prescribed Authority, would be deemed to have been abated and no possession can be obtained as a consequence of the first order dated 25-2-1975 declaring an area of 3.391/2 acres of irrigated land as surplus land (See Balwant v. State of U.P. 1980 All WC 254 : 1980 All LJ 775. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they deserve to be quashed. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 20-2-1981 and 7-10-1978 and the proceedings for obtaining possession from the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 25-2-75 are hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that redetermination of the surplus land in pursuance of the second notice served on the petitioner would be made, in accordance with the provisions of the Amending Act. The effect of such redetermination would also be given. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.