ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. - The petitioners were purchasers of the land from Labh Singh son of Harnam Singh, original tenure-holder against whom the notices under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the Act) were issued. The petitioners have purchased the land in the year 1973 from Labh Singh through a Sale deed dated 23/26-6-1973. No notice was given to the petitioners the vendees as required by Section 9(2) of the Act and Rule 8. As soon as the petitioner came to learn they preferred the objection with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By the impugned orders dated 19-12-1985 and 28-6-85 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexures VIII and VI) the application moved by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the objection, has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that notice must have been served on the petitioners, the purchasers as the vendor has no right left in the plots, hence notice on vendor is of no consequence rather vital rights of petitioners have been taken away without serving any notice on them in view of Section 9(2) of the Act and Rule 8 of the Rules. As the petitioners were not served with any notice, hence they have no knowledge about proceedings and sufficient grounds have been made out for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Reliance was placed on Full Bench decision of this Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Civil Judge, AIR 1970 All 130 and another Full Bench decision in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P., 1979 (5) All LR 564: (1970 All LJ 1174). The learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that the impugned orders are incorrect and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rightly rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the petition may be disposed of finally on merits. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the petition may be disposed of finally on merits. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Section 9(2) and Rule 3 makes it manifest that the notice under Section 9(2) is mandatory to the recorded tenure-holder and in case tenure-holder is not recorded, or it another tenure-holder has purchased the land but is not recorded, then the notice must be issued to him as well. Under Rule 8 of the Rules it has been provided that C.L.R. form3 also includes the land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon such a person a notice in C.L.H. form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. from No. 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. In the present case, no such notice was given to the petitioners, who were purchasers from the recorded tenure-holder under the aforesaid sale deed. The provisions of Rule 8 were mandatory in nature. These provisions are set out as follows :- "As soon as may, after expiry of the. thirty days from the date of publication of the general notice in C.L.H. form in the official gazette, the prescribed authority shall cause to he served upon tenure-holder, who has failed to submit the statement in C.L.H. form 2 or has submitted an incomplete or incorrect statement, a notice in C.L.H. form 4 together with the copy of the statement in C.L.H. form 3 prpared under Rule calling upon him to show cause within a period of 15 days from the date of the service of the notice, why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct." 6. Rule 8 provides two types of tenure-holders First is the recorded tenure-holder and the proviso provides notice to be served on any other tenure holder other than provided in the Ist part of the Rule. Section 3(17) defines tenure holder, which means holder of a holding. Rule 8 provides two types of tenure-holders First is the recorded tenure-holder and the proviso provides notice to be served on any other tenure holder other than provided in the Ist part of the Rule. Section 3(17) defines tenure holder, which means holder of a holding. After the execution of the sale deed the vendees - the petitioners in the present case, become holders of a holding even though they might not be recorded in revenue papers Bhumidhars. A bare reading of Section 9 which makes it evident that notice is statutorily required to be served on the vendees, even though they might not have been entered in revenue papers. 7. Apart from statutory requirement under the general principles of law or the common law also, in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power the rules of natural justice should be observed. It should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The primary rule of natural justice is that no one may be condemned unheard or no citizen must be deprived of his legal rights or property with out first affording his reasonable opportunity of hearing by serving a notice on him or them. (See Lake Distt. Special Planning Board v. Secretary of State for Environment, (1975) 119 Sol.J.O., 187, R. v. Working JJ. Exparte Gassage, (1975) Q.B. 148). In Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Civil Judge ( AIR 1970 All 130 ) (supra) the Full Bench (on para 36, page 142) ruled as follows :- "The fact that a tenure-holder is not recorded as such in the revenue records is not relevant for determining whether he is entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Act and issued to another person under Section 10(2) of the Act and the above fact does not disentitle him to file an objection if he is otherwise entitled to do so." In Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. (1979 All U 1174 (FB)) (supra) following observations (on page 566 of All LR) (at pp. 1175, 1176 of All LJ) may be noticed:- "It is thus evident that the notice requiring tenure holder to show cause why the statement prepared by the prescribed authority by not taken as correct, is to be issued to the tenure holder in respect of whose holding the statement has been prepared., Under the proviso, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served a notice to the person in whose name the land included in C.L.H. form 3 is ostensibly held. The prescribed authority prepares the statements on the basis of the revenue records, other from, of revenue records or other informations, the prescribed authority comes to know that the land included in the statement in C.L.H. form 3 includes the land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority is bound to serve notice on such person. The phrase used is 'shall cause to be served'." 8. The provisions of the Act and Rules are confiscatory in nature. Consequently, they have to be interpreted in favour of the persons or the tenure-holder, whose land was sought to be acquired or sought to be declared as surplus land. In view of the discussion aforesaid there is no scope for assumption when the vendees need not be served with the notice rather service of notice on vendees is mandatory as they are tenure-holders. 9. The petitioners have taken care to file an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act with the prayer that the delay in filing the objection may be condoned. Prima facie, a valid explanation was given. The application junder Section 5 must be disposed of liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The respondents 2 and 3 committed manifest errors in rejecting the application under Section 5 Limitation Act. The delay in filing the objection, in the ends of justice is condoned. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations made above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19-12-1985 and 28-6-1985 (Annexures VIII and VI) are quashed and the objection of the petitioners must be treated within time. The S.D.M. Bilaspur, district Rampur (Prescribed Authority), under the Act, is directed to dispose of the objection of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law. As the matter has dragged on for too long what is required is expedition. The S.D.M. Bilaspur, district Rampur (Prescribed Authority), under the Act, is directed to dispose of the objection of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law. As the matter has dragged on for too long what is required is expedition. The Prescribed Authority would dispose of the objection within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is furnished before him. The parties shall bear their own costs.