ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 15-4-1988 in Appeal No. 97/99/15 (85-86) Sarkar v. Goverdhan Das Ji Maharaj, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are claiming their separate entities and have contested the notice under S. 10(2), U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on the ground that the land belonging to the petitioners cannot be clubbed together and the notice issued under S. 10(2) of the above mentioned Act is invalid and that the land shown as irrigated in the notice is also incorrect. Therefore, the notice should be discharged. 3. The prescribed authority through its judgment dated 4-7-1985 accepted the claim of the petitioners about separate entities and passed the following order :- "...........Prastut Sakshya Se Bhi Ispasht Hai Ki Do Mandir Alag Alag Sthan Par Hain Isliye Thakur Goverdhan Nath Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Mathura Men Do Alag Alag Deities Manta Hun. Aur Unki Bhumi Ek Dusre Ke Notice Men Nahi Jodi Ja Sakti Hai. Vartman Notice Nirast Kiya Jata Hai Aur Sarkar Ko Yeh Nirdesh Diya Jata Hai Ki Woh Dono Deity Ke Alag Alag Bhumi Ke Sambandh Men Dekhe, Yadi Unke Pas Sima Se Adhik Bhumi Hai To Naya Notice Dekar Karyawahi Karen. Adesh Ke Ek Prati Prabhari Adhikari Ceiling Orai Ko Bheji N Jaye. Adesh Khulen yayalaya Men Hastakshar Karke Sunaya Gaya." 4. Against the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority the State had preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the judgment dated 15-4-1988 and the appellate authority has passed the following order :- "Rajya Sarkar Ka Aage Yah Bhi Kahna Hai Ki Param Pujya Shri Gohardhan Nath Ji Mahraj Virajman Mandir Mathura W a Pindari Ek Hi Vyakti Hai. Mandir Ke Prabandhak Kabhi Ek Hi Vyakti Hain Do Alag Alag Do Isthano Par Alag Alag Mandir Bane Hone Wahi Isthano Par Murtiyan Hone Ke Karan Devta Do Nahi Ho Jayenge. Main Rajya Sarkar Ke Is Tark Se Sahmat Hun Ki Prastut Vad Param Pujya Gobardhandas Ji Maharaj Mathura Wa Pindari Ek Hi Vidhir Vyakti Hain. Mandir Ke Prabandhak Kabhi Ek Hi Vyakti Hain Do Alag Alag Do Isthano Par Alag Alag Mandir Bane Hone Wahi Isthano Par Murtiyan Hone Ke Karan Devta Do Nahi Ho Jayenge. Main Rajya Sarkar Ke Is Tark Se Sahmat Hun Ki Prastut Vad Param Pujya Gobardhandas Ji Maharaj Mathura Wa Pindari Ek Hi Vidhir Vyakti Hain. Ukt Paristhitiyon Men Rajya Sarkar Ki Oar Se Prastut Appeal Anshik Rup Se Swikar Ki Jati Hai Tatha Niyat Pradhikari Ke Adesh Dinank 4-7-85 Nirast Kiya Jata Hai Tatha Prastavit 13-14 Acre Sinchit Bhumi Atirikt Ghoshit Ki Jati Hai. Niyat Adhikari Vikalp Lekar Bhumi Atirikt Ghoshit Karne Ki Agrim Karyawahi Karen Patrawali Niyat Pradhikari Ko Avashyak Karyawahi Hetu Preshit Ki Jati Hai." 5. The petitioners have approached this court against the abovementioned order of the appellate authority. The main grievance of the petitioners before me is that the appellate authority has patently erred in not treating the petitioners as separate entity and has acted illegally in clubbing the land belonging to the petitioners as one entity. Relevant allegations have been made in paras. 5 to 15 of the writ petition. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the State. In the facts and circumstances of this case the learned counsel for the State has tried to support the impugned judgment of the appellate authority. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In my opinion, the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is patently erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the present case. My attention has been drawn to the ruling reported in 1979 All U 596 State of U. P. v. Swami Radha Krishna wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has made the following observations in para 1 : "..........Now, the Calcutta High Court in three cases has consistently taken a view that a plurality of deities is conceivable when gifts or dedications are made by a donor and it is also proper that such deities should be considered to be equal co-sharer in specific shares in the gifted or endowed property. It was held that in the case of such gifts and dedications where more than one Hindu deity is involved, each deity should be considered to be one unit and the dedication or gift should be held to be made in favour of all the deities as tenants-in-common and not as join tenants......." 8. In para 2 the learned single Judge has indicated as below : "........It seems to me that it was a temple wherein the separate idols of Radhaji and Krishnaji are there and in any case, as I pointed out above, a clear finding of the appellate court below is there to the said effect. Once, as I stated above, idea of plurality of deities is accepted in relation to the endowment or holding of property, I find it difficult to treat these two deities asone, as is contended for by the learned Standing Counsel. I find a lack of logical consistency in the said contention." 9. In the present case petitioner 1 is a single deity situate at Chatta Bazar, Mathura (see para 2 of the writ petition) whereas petitioner 2 is a composite deity installed within the house of Smt. Kamla Bai, situate at village Pindari, Paragana Konch, district Jalaun. The distance between the two temples numbered as petitioners 1 and 2 is more than 300 miles. In such a circumstance I think that the appellate authority has patently erred in treating the petitioners as one entity. In the above quoted ruling the idea of plurality of deities has been accepted in relation to the endowment or holding of the property. I, therefore, hold that the petitioners are two separate entities and their holdings cannot be clubbed together in the facts and circumstances of the present case. To my mind, the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is not in consonance with the decision of this Court mentioned supra, therefore, it suffers from patent errors of law and deserves to be quashed. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority attached with the supplementary affidavit is hereby quashed. It would be open to the State to issue notices contemplated by the Ceiling Act if it finds that the petitioners are possessed of land exceeding the ceiling limit. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.