JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav 1. By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the impugned order dated 31-10-1981 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed in the proceedings under section 9 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein-after referred to as the Act), and also the order dated 25-11-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under Section 13 of the Act, are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order determining the surplus area was passed by the prescribed Authority under Section 11 (1) of the Act against Smt. Umapati Devi after serving a notice on her under section 10 (2) of the Act who died without filing any appeal. Before her death, the petitioners obtained a will from her and filed an appeal under section 13 (1) alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, but the delay has not been condoned and the application has been rejected on insufficient ground with the observation that no grounds exist for condonation of delay. The learned counsel urged that as the petitioners were not served with any notice as required by Section 10 (2) of the Act, the delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned and the same may be decided on merits. In view of Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Act, in case a tenure holder dies, his heirs are required to be served by the prescribed Authority, but that was not done either by the Prescribed Authority of by the Appellate Court. The impugned order is manifestly erroneous. 3. A perusal of the record indicates that the order of the prescribed Authority dated 31-10-1981 was passed when Smt. Umapati Devi the tenure holder, was alive. Thereafter for four years till 1985 she was alive, but she did not prefer an appeal against that order. The appeal was filed in fact after five years from the date of her death. In this way, a delay of nine years was caused in preferring the appeal. When for four years Smt. Umapati Devi against whom the order was passed, did not prefer any appeal, there was no justification for the petitioners to explain the delay caused during the lifetime of Smt. Umapati Devi. In this way, a delay of nine years was caused in preferring the appeal. When for four years Smt. Umapati Devi against whom the order was passed, did not prefer any appeal, there was no justification for the petitioners to explain the delay caused during the lifetime of Smt. Umapati Devi. That delay of four years cannot be explained. This aspect of the matter has been considered in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Appellate Court (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) at page 28 of the paper book. Consequently, the Appellate Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application as barred by inordinate delay. 4. Coming to the next question as to whether provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules will apply, particularly to the facts of the present case, when actually for four years Smt. Umapati Devi was alive and did not prefer any appeal and whether under Rule 26 notice could be given to the petitioners after the death of tenure holder The statutory provisions of Rule 26 are as follows :- "If during the course of service of notice under Rule 24 or otherwise, the Prescribed Authority comes to know that the person on whom the notice is or was to be served has died, may proceed to determine the legal representative of the deceased in the manner prescribed in Rule 43-B of the U. P. Zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952." 5. This Rule 26 of the Rules, 1961 need not read in isolation. Its interpretation has to be textual and contextual. The legislature has placed this Rule 26, under Chapter III, dealing with determination and payment of compensation. The payment of compensation is the stage after determination of surplus area. The appeal filed by the petitioner was before the stage of determination of compensation rather it was in respect of determination of surplus area under section 12 of the Act. The appeal was preferred under section 13 (1) of the Act. The provision of service of notice on the heir of the tenure holder under the Chapter III, was in respect of payment of compensation after surplus land has been determined in appeal. 6. Indubitably a bare reading of Rule 26 refers to the service of notice under Rule 24. This 26 may be read alongwith Rule 23 and Rule 24 of the Rules. 6. Indubitably a bare reading of Rule 26 refers to the service of notice under Rule 24. This 26 may be read alongwith Rule 23 and Rule 24 of the Rules. It is to the effect that the Prescribed Authority shall prepare with the help of C.L.H. Form 11, get the Draft Assessment Roll prepared in C.L.H. From 12, in the name of every tenure holder entitled to the amount payable under Section 17 and cause a notice to be served with a notice in C.L.H. Form 13 on every such tenure holder. The Maxim "Construction Ex VISCERIBLIS ACTLIS" connotes that every part of a statute must be construed with reference to context. As stated in Salmond's Jurisprudence 11th Edition page 152, the MENS' or SENTEN TIA LEGIS, which means that the duty of the court is to act upon the intention of the legislature. In the present case Rule 26 refers to Rule 24 which makes reference to C.L.H. Form 11, which was prepared in respect of payment of compensation and notice was required to be served on him. Similarly C.L.H Form 12 was also in respect of Draft Assessment Roll in respect of details about payment of compensation to tenure holder. In this way I am of the considered opinion that service of notice under Rule 26 was in respect of payment of compensation and not in respect of determination of surplus land as contemplated by Section 10 (2) of the Act. The petitioner has preferred the appeal under section 13 in respect of determination of surplus area and it was urged that as Smt. Umapati Devi died hence notice under Rule 26 must have been served on the heirs i.e. the petitioner. But Rule 26 contemplates the procedure for service of notice in proceeding for determination of compensation payable to the tenure holder whose land has been declared surplus. Rule 26 was not therefore the proper Rule under which notice could be served on the heirs of tenure holder who was preferring appeal against an order declaring surplus area. In view of premises aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.