JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - This petition has been filed against the order passed by opposite party No. 2 rejecting the objections of the petitioners and against the appellate order dated 8.3.1984 passed by opposite party No. 1 dismissing the appeal. A copy of the order passed by the prescribed authority has been filed as annexure7 and a copy of the appellate order has been filed as Annexure9 to the petition. 2. It appears that the land in dispute was originally recorded in the name of Chandra Bhan Singh and others who executed a saledeed in favour of the petitioners on 2.5.1972. The land in question was also mutated in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of an order of mutation dated 15.9.1972. The petitioners have also filed copies of the revenue records as Annexures 2 to 5 to the writ petition indicating that their names were recorded in the revenue records. The fact of mutation in favour of the petitioners and entry of their names in the revenue records has not been disputed on behalf of the opposite parties. However, it appears that a notice was issued to Chandra Bhan Singh and others under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and their objections in regard to the saledeed executed in favour of the petitioners were not accepted and the appeal preferred by Chandra Bhan Singh and others was also dismissed. The petitioners thereafter filed objections before the prescribed authority agitating the matter that they were bona fide purchasers of the land in question for value and this land should not have been included in the total area of land held by Chandra Bhan Singh. The objections were rejected by the prescribed authority by order dated June 30, 1983 on the ground that in respect of this land in question a decision had already been taken on June 30, 1977 wherein the saledeed had not been accepted as bona fide. The petitioners filed appeal which also met the same fate on the ground that the matter had already been decided earlier upto the appellate stage and the case of Chandra Bhan Singh and others regarding the saledeed was not accepted. 3. The petitioners filed appeal which also met the same fate on the ground that the matter had already been decided earlier upto the appellate stage and the case of Chandra Bhan Singh and others regarding the saledeed was not accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since in the revenue records, names of the petitioners had been mutated after order of mutation dated 15.9.1972, which fact has not been disputed in the counter affidavit, the notice should have been given to the petitioners also in view of the provisions of Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, first proviso of which reads as follows: Provided that where the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 also includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon such other persona notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. 4. However, the stand taken by the State in para 6 of the counter affidavit is as follows: That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are not admitted. Notice to the petitioners who claim to be transferees, is not required to be given under rules, as they are not tenure holders. 5. In view of the first proviso to Rule 8 quoted above, the stand taken by the State is not tenable. There is a clear provision for giving of show cause notice to the ostensible owner but it is apparent that no such notice was given to the petitioners. 6. The next question then to be considered is as to whether the objections filed by the petitioners could be entertained, in view of the orders passed in the earlier proceedings which were taken against Chandra Bhan Singh and others. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court, one is reported in 1984 Lucknow Civil Decisions, Vol. II, page 324, Dirvijai Singh v. State of U.P. and others, in which it has been held that such objections are to be entertained despite the fact that earlier matter may have been fought out between the state and another person. II, page 324, Dirvijai Singh v. State of U.P. and others, in which it has been held that such objections are to be entertained despite the fact that earlier matter may have been fought out between the state and another person. Another case reported in the same Volume is at page 215, Rasid Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, where it has been held that such objections should be treated as objections under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 7. In view of the discussion held above, it is clear that the petitioners had to be heard and their objections had to be treated as objections under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, specially when the land was recorded in the revenue records in their names in pursuance of an order of mutation passed in their favour. It will not affect their case if earlier any order was passed in proceedings between Chandra Bhan Singh and others and the State. As a matter of fact, under the first proviso to Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, a notice should have been issued to the petitioners as well. The opposite parties have dismissed the objections and the appeal preferred by the petitioners erroneously. The matter had to be considered on merits on the objections filed by the petitioners. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by opposite parties No. I and 2 contained in Annexures 9 and 7 respectively are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to dispose of the application dated 24.6.1983 moved by the petitioners according to law. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prescribed authority may also be directed to hear the tenure holders, namely, Chandra Bhan Singh and others and those others who may be affected by the orders passed by it, namely, in whose favour allotment had been made. So far this point is concerned, it will be open to the prescribed authority to hear any person who is entitled for hearing according to law and the rules. 10. There would be no order as to costs. (Petition allowed)