ORDER R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned. standing counsel. Considering the short controversy involved in this case, the learned Standing Counsel is not required to file any counter-affidavit. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division Jhansi dated 18th July, 1991 by which the appeal of the petitioner, against the order dated 24th December, 1988 passed by Prescribed Authority, Banda has been dismissed. The facts of the case are that by order dated 12th January, 1979, 23 bigha 14 biswa 6 biswansis land was determined surplus by the Prescribed Authority. This order was subject to challenge in appeal and then the dispute went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, ultimately the order was upheld, in the meantime, consolidation operations were carried out in the village and the plot numbers were changed. The Prescribed Authority, Banda, however, by his order dated 24th December, 1988 without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner determined the land consisting of fresh plots numbers as surplus. According to this order five plots, covering an area of 13.80 acre land, were determined surplus. The Prescribed Authority, Banda in his order observed that as consolidation operations in the village have been completed hence the consolidation officials have been summoned and a reference has been got prepared which is being accepted and the plot numbers shown therein are determined surplus. The appellate authority by his judgment dated 18-1-1991 dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner and has taken the view that no hearing was required before passing order dated 24th December, 1988 as it was an administrative order and by this, order dated 12th January, 1979, which has already gained finality, has been given effect. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged in this writ petition. The view taken by the appellate authority is wholly erroneous in law. The tenure holder is entitled for indicating his choice under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. If a portion of the plot is taken then he is also entitled for hearing under Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules framed under the Act. As valuable rights of petitioner relating to property are affected it cannot be said in any manner that the petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before passing the order. 3. If a portion of the plot is taken then he is also entitled for hearing under Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules framed under the Act. As valuable rights of petitioner relating to property are affected it cannot be said in any manner that the petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before passing the order. 3. The view taken by the appellate authority that the proceedings before Prescribed Authority were administrative in nature is also not correct in law. The provisions contained in Act and Rules provide elaborate procedure and tenure holder has been given right of hearing at every stage including at the time of determination of surplus land. There is yet another aspect of the matter considering which it cannot be said that hearing was not required to be given. By order dated 12th January, 1979 an area of 23 bigha 14 biswa 6 biswansi of land was determined surplus. However by order dated 24th December, 1988, 13.80 bigha land has been determined surplus which in terms of bighas, shall be equivalent to more than 30 bighas. Thus the area of surplus land already determined now stands increased. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was required to be given. 4. It is a serious question in itself and could not be legally resolved in violation of principles of natural justice. Under Ceiling Act the basis for determination of ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder is facility of irrigation available to his holding, whereas under provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act exchange ratio valuation of each plot is fixed, in comparison with the standard plots determined under Section 8A for each unit, by picking best plot or plot regard being had to productivity, location and existing soil class of the plot or plots. Thus as both Acts provide different method for determining the areas for being provided to tenure holder in lieu of his holding. The method contemplated under one Act cannot be legally imported for giving effect to orders passed under another Act. Thus as both Acts provide different method for determining the areas for being provided to tenure holder in lieu of his holding. The method contemplated under one Act cannot be legally imported for giving effect to orders passed under another Act. In my opinion if a particular area has been determined surplus area under the Ceiling Act and if consolidation operation intervened and order is given effect after close of operations, the ceiling authorities will be entitled to only for that area and it could not be enhanced on basis of valuation of plots fixed under consolidation operations. However, if the specific plots of surplus land were determined under Ceiling Act and the same became final and during consolidation those plots were required to be changed in connection with allotment of chak or for other like purposes change could be effected on basis of valuation fixed during consolidation. It is permissible because the plots determined as surplus land had also been subject to consolidation operations and must have been assigned exchange ratio valuation. Except in the above circumstances the area of surplus land determined under provisions of Ceiling Act could not be legally enhanced or reduced. If the tenure holder if deprived of a larger area than determined surplus that would be in contravention of the provisions of Ceiling Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing Special Leave petition allowed petitioner an opportunity to file a review application before this Court. In pursuance of that liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the review petition has been filed on which notices have been issued to the State on 30th Sept., 1985 and the matter is still pending. Petitioner may place all these facts before the Prescribed Authority in response to the notice which she shall now receive and may place such other facts which may feel necessary for protection of her interest. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 24th December 1988 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Banda and order dated 18th July, 1991 passed by Additional Commissioner judicial Jhansi Division, Jhansi are hereby quashed. The Prescribed Authority Banda shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority Banda shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the order determining surplus land was passed in 1979 the Prescribed Authority shall pass fresh order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before him. There will be no order as to costs. 7. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for parties on payment of usual charges within a week.