JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. This petition has been filed questioning the order dated 20-2-1992 passed by the prescribed authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which be has refused to abate the proceedings on the ground that substitution application for bringing the heirs of tenure-holder late Shri Jyoti Prasad was not moved within time prescribed by law. Facts giving rise to the petition are that Jyoti Prasad was served with a notice under section 10 (2) of the Act in C. L. H. Form 4 together with a statement in C.L. H. Form 3 calling upon him as to why the land mentioned therein should not be determined as surplus. It appears that while the proceedings were pending, an application was moved for transfer of proceedings before the Commissioner of the Division. While this transfer application was pending, Jyoti Prasad died on 4-3-1989. An application was given before the Commissioner on 27-3 1989 intimating about death of Jyoti Prasad and on that application by his order dated 9-5-1989 the heirs of Jyoti Prasad, namely Smt. Kusum Lata, widow, and Arbind Kumar and Neeraj, two sons of the deceased tenure holder, were brought on record. However, no such step was taken before the prescribed authority. The transfer application was disposed of on 10-11-1989. Thereafter the proceedings resumed before the prescribed authority and an objection was raised by petitioner and others that proceedings have abated and they should be dropped. The prescribed authority by his order dated 20-2-1992 refused to abate the proceedings and proceeded further. The prescribed authority has refused to abate the proceedings for two reasons, firstly, that the heirs were already brought on record in miscellaneous proceedings before the Commissioner for transfer of the proceedings which were part of the main proceedings against the tenure-holder. The second reason given by the prescribed authority is that on 7-9-1991 the order dated 10-11-1989 passed by the Commissioner was received. Thereafter it was directed to enquire about the heirs of the deceased tenure holder. On the basis of that report was submitted on 10-12-1991 by Tahsildar intimating the heirs. The second reason given by the prescribed authority is that on 7-9-1991 the order dated 10-11-1989 passed by the Commissioner was received. Thereafter it was directed to enquire about the heirs of the deceased tenure holder. On the basis of that report was submitted on 10-12-1991 by Tahsildar intimating the heirs. The prescribed authority on the basis of the order dated 9-5-1989 passed by the Commissioner brining the heirs on record and also on the basis of the report dated 10-12-1991 of the Tahsildar directed all the heirs to be brought on record. It appears that on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, Smt. Anjul and Smt Kusumlata have also been impleaded as heirs 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, submitted that the order passed in transfer application bringing the heirs oh record could not be legally assumed in main proceedings pending before the prescribed authority and the proceedings stood abated as the heirs were not brought on record within time allowed by law. It has also been submitted that there was no application moved for setting aside the abatement and for condoning delay. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a case Balram v. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1983 ALJ 91, wherein the order abating the appeal for non-substitution of the heirs was upheld by this Court. The view taken by this Court was confirmed by Honourable Supreme Court in the same case which was taken upto Supreme Court. The judgment is Balram v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, 1983 ALJ1 543. 4. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand justified the order of the prescribed authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to abate the proceedings. I have beared both the learned counsels and in my opinion the aforesaid cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. 4. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand justified the order of the prescribed authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to abate the proceedings. I have beared both the learned counsels and in my opinion the aforesaid cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. This Court as well as Honourable Supreme Court upheld the order agating appeal on the ground that the provisions of Order XXII were applicable to appeals in view of the provisions contained in section 38 (1) of the Act which is being reproduced below ; "38 (1) ; In hearing and deciding an appeal under this Act, the appellate Court shall have all the powers and the privileges of a civil court and follow the procedure for the hearing and disposal of appeals laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 5. A perusal of section 38 shows that without any reservation the entire procedure for hearing and disposal of appeals laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure including the powers and privileges of civil court have been made applicable so far as the appeals filed under the Act are concerned. However, while having the powers and the privileges of a civil court and applying the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the officer or authority holding an enquiry or hearing an objection under the Act, the language used is different. Section 37 of the Act is reproduced below : "37 Any officer or authority holding an enquiry or hearing an objection under this Act, shall, in so far as it may be applicable, have all the powers and the privileges of a civil court, and follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the trial and disposal of suits relating to immovable property." (emphasis supplied) 6. Thus in case of the proceedings before the prescribed authority and other officers the procedure for trial and disposal of suits shall not be applicable if the procedure has been provided under the Act or the Rules. Rule 19 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) contemplates the situation of the death of the tenure-holder at different stages. Rule 19 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) contemplates the situation of the death of the tenure-holder at different stages. Rule 19 (4) of the Rules which would be applicable to the facts of the present case is being .quoted below : "(4) Where a tenure-holder dies after the service of notice in CL H. Form 4, executor, administrator, or other legal representatives shall be allowed 15 days' time from the dale of tenure-holder's death to file objection against the statement in C L.H. Form 3. The objections of the executor, administrator, or other legal representatives of the deceased tenure-holder about the option of the land, which is to be retained as the ceiling area applicable to the deceased tenure-holder, shall be accepted only if all the legal representatives are agreed about the option " A close perusal of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 19 makes it clear that there is no time limit fixed for bringing executor, administrator or other legal representatives on record The only thing provided is that they shall be entitled for 15 days' time to file objection against the statement in C.L.H. Form 3. This objection may be in addition to the objection already filed by the deceased tenure holder or it may be a fresh objection if no objection was filed by the tenure holder. Thus as specific procedure has been provided under Rule 19 dealing with the situation, the provisions of Order XXII could not be applied so far as the proceedings before the prescribed authority are concerned. The case law relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable and does not help the petitioner. It may be noticed that section 5 of the Act gives a command and creates a legal obligation that no person shall be allowed to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on and from the commencement of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment Act, 1972). Section 5 provides thereafter the ceiling limit. Section 9 provides for a general notice and section 10 provides for the personal notice to the tenure-holder who submits an incomplete or incorrect statement in response to the general notice issued under section 9 or fails to submit the statement. Section 5 provides thereafter the ceiling limit. Section 9 provides for a general notice and section 10 provides for the personal notice to the tenure-holder who submits an incomplete or incorrect statement in response to the general notice issued under section 9 or fails to submit the statement. Section 10 creates an obligation on the prescribed authority to get the statement prepared containing such particulars as may be prescribed for determining the surplus land Under section 11 he has been empowered to determine the surplus land, Thus from a perusal of the provisions contained in section 5 read with sections 9, 10 and 11, it is clear that proceedings in cases initiated before the prescribed authority for determination of surplus land after service of general notice under section 9 or individual notice under section 10 (2) cannot abate on death of the tenure-holder. The heirs may be brought on record on the application of the State or they may appear themselves to defend their rights Otherwise also, since the heirs were already brought on record in transfer application during its pendency before the Commissioner there was no question of any prejudice to the heirs as they became aware of the proceedings against the late Shri Jyoti Prasad under the Act. In my opinion the view taken by the prescribed authority is correct and does cot suffer from any error of law. 7. This writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.