JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain 1. This writ petition is directed against the older dated 20th May, 1992, passed by Prescribed Authority, the order dated 20th June, 1993, affirming the said order passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 24th September, 1993, rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2oth June, 1993. 2. The facts, in brief, are that; a notice dated 5-11-1974 was issued to the petitioner under section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determining surplus area. In the notice, 90 bighas 8 biswas were shown as irrigated land, 21 bighas 16 biswas as unirrigated land, 24 bighas 2 biswas as grove land and 2 bighas as 'Usar' Land-total 115 bighas 8 biswas in terms of Irrigated land were shown as holdings of the petitioner and it was proposed In the notice as to why 34 bighas of land in excess of ceiling area be not declared as surplus. The petitioner filed an objection which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 51/8 of 1974-75. In the mean-time, another notice dated 24-9-1975 under section 10 (2) of the Act was Issued to the petitioner. In this notice, 93 bighas 18 biswas irrigated land. 23 bighas 16 biswas unirrigated land and 14 bighas 2 biswas grove land were shown as holdings of the petitioner. This was calculated as 115 bighas 8 biswas irrigated land. The petitioner filed objections to this notice also. It appears that this case was also registered as Ceiling Case No, 51/8, of 1974-75. Proceedings, however, in both the notices were taken separately and both the cases were not consolidated, with the result that separate orders were being passed in both the proceedings. The Prescribed Authority declared 32 bighas as surplus land of the petitioner on the basis of the proceedings initiated on the first notice. The petitioner filed Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 against the said order. 3. Proceedings, which were initiated on the basis of the second notice, were taken up by the Prescribed Authority and in those proceedings the land of the petitioner was declared as 8 bighas 10 biswas by order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6th March, 1976. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976. This appeal was dismissed on 20th September, 1976, by Civil Judge, Nainital. The petitioner did not prefer any writ petition against the said order and that order became final. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27th February, 1975, i.e. Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975, came up for consideration before the Third Additional District Judge, Nainital, and the said appeal was allowed on 21st May, 1977, holding that the petitioner has no surplus land. Before the appellate court, none of the parties pointed out that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6th March, 1976, which was based on the second notice, had already been dismissed on 20th September, 1976. It appears that the State also did not prefer any writ petition against the said order and that also became final. The State proceeded to take possession of 8 bighas 10 biswas land as surplus on the basis of the order dated 6th March; 1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority, as affirmed in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 on 20th September, 1976, by the appellate authority. The petitioner filed an application purporting to be review application before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital, under section 13-A of the Act. It was registered as Case No. 9/26 of 1985-86. It was pointed out before the Additional Commissioner that there were two conflicting orders of two different appellate authorities-one passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 (arising out of proceedings on the basis of first notice) and another order of the appellate authority dated 20th September, 1976, passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 (arising out of second notice) and both are inconsistent. The Additional Commissioner, without setting aside the order dated 20th September, 1976 passed in Celling Appeal No. 168 of 1975 directed the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 12th March, 1991, to make enquiry in the matter to find out true position after summoning records of both the cases which were initiated on the basis of first notice as well as second notice. 5. 5. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 20th May, 1992, held that the second notice was based on the fact that the petitioner had 14 bighas 2 biswas as grove land while the first notice was based on the allegation that the petitioner had 24 bighas 2 blswas as grove and taking into consideration the fact that the area of grove land was reduced in the second notice dated 24-9-1975, the declaration of surplus land as 8 bighas 10 biswas is correct. The petitioner preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 24 of 1991-92 against the said order. The appeal was dismissed on 10th June, 1992. The petitioner preferred review application before the appellate authority and the review application has been rejected on 24th September, 1993. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 on 21st May, 1977, on the basis of first notice, will operate as res judicata in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 as the decision in Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 was given subsequently. He contends that the finding recorded in tie proceedings under the provisions of U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act will operate as res judicata either in the same proceedings or in the subsequent proceedings. He placed reliance upon Kr. Shiv Mahendra Kumar Singh v State of U. P., 1982 ALJ 106. There are two aspects of the matter. Firstly, whether the cause of action involved in both the cases was the same and secondly which of the two judgments can be said to have been decided earlier in time. 7. The first notice was based on the fact that the petitioner had 24 bighas of grove land. In the second notice dated 24th September, 1975, the area of the grove land of the petitioner was shown as 14 bighas 2 biswas. The question in both the cases as regards the grove land was concerned, was different. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that the two proceedings as regards the grove land shown in the notice were the same. The finding, which has been recorded on the basis that there were 20 bighas shown in the notice cannot be taken as the same. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that the two proceedings as regards the grove land shown in the notice were the same. The finding, which has been recorded on the basis that there were 20 bighas shown in the notice cannot be taken as the same. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even aa regards the first notice and second notice, the effect was the same; inasmuch as, in the first notice, the total irrigated area was calculated as 115 bighas 8 biswas and, in the second notice, the total irrigated area was calculated as 115 bighas 8 biswas. It is because of the fact that, in the first notice, the area of 90 bighas 8 biswas was shown as irrigated and the area of 20 bighas of land was shown as unirrigated. In the second notice also, the area of 93 bighas 18 biswas shown as irrigated and the area of 23 bighas 20 biswas was shown as unirrigated. The major difference was of the area shown in the grove land. The calculation as to the total area was not material, but the area of the land indicates that, in the first notice, 24 bighas 2 biswas were shown as grove land, while in the second notice 14 bighas 2 biswas land were shown as grove. In this respect, the controversy regarding the area of grove land was different. In view of these facts. the matter regarding the area of grove Land was entirely different in both the notices and that will not operate as res judicata. 8. The second question is whether the decision dated 20-9-1976 in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 will operate as res judicata or the decision dated 21st May, 1977, in Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975 will operate as res judicata. Explanation I to section 11, CPC provides that the "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. The proceedings were initiated first on the basis of the first notice dated 5-11-1974 and another proceedings were taken on the basis of the second notice dated 24-9-1975. The Prescribed Authority in both the cases decided the matter by separate orders. The proceedings were initiated first on the basis of the first notice dated 5-11-1974 and another proceedings were taken on the basis of the second notice dated 24-9-1975. The Prescribed Authority in both the cases decided the matter by separate orders. The Prescribed Authority had decided the matter on 6th March, 1976, on the basis of the second notice and the appeal against the decision was decided on 20th September, 1976. It was after the decision of the appropriate authority, the appeal against the decision of the Prescribed Authority given on the basis of first notice came up for hearing before the appellate authority on 21st May, 1977. The decision given in the appeal on 20th September 1976, Will operate as res judicata in the appeal which was filed in proceedings Arising out of first notice because the appellate authority had already decided the matter which had become final. Even If it is held that the question Involved in both the cases were the: same, the decision, which is given in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 decided on 20th September, 1976, will operate as res judicata. It is settled law that the decision given earlier in time by the same authority will operate as res judicata on the authority who decides similar matter subsequently vide Lonan Kutty v. Thomman, AIR 1976 SC 1645 . The petitioner had not filed any writ petition against the order dated 20th September, 1976. It was only in the year 1985 that he filed an application purporting to be under section 13-A of the Act. The powers conferred under section 13-A of the Act is limited one as to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record. It was pointed out before the appellate authority that with regard to the same matter two different orders were existing The appellate authority directed the Prescribed Authority to summon the record of both the cases and to find out true position. The appellate authority, however, did not set aside the order dated 20th September, 1976. It only directed to make an enquiry in the matter. The appellate authority, however, did not set aside the order dated 20th September, 1976. It only directed to make an enquiry in the matter. The enquiry was conducted by the Prescribed Authority on the basis of the order dated 12th March, 1991, passed by the appellate authority who found that the matter as regards grove land was, as in the notice, different and, therefore, proceedings initiated on the basis of second notice cannot be taken to be illegal and that is binding. This order has been affirmedl in appeal, 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the first notice has been given, no second notice could have been given particularly when U. P. Amending Act 20 of 1976 had come into force in October, 1975, while the second notice was issued on 24th September, 1975. There was no bar to give a second notice with corrected area. Secondly, the proceedings 00 the basis of second notice continued after the second notice dated 24th September, 1975. Meanwhile, the Amending Act came into force in October, 1975. Section 29 (b) of the Act provides as follows :- '(b) any ucinigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grave-land loses its character as grove- land or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fail under any of the categories exempted---" 10. The first notice was based on the fact that the area of grove land was 24 bighas 2 biswas. but the second notice was based on the fact that the area of grove land was 14 bighas 2 biswas. The matter was thus covered by section 29 (b) of the Act as well. The proceedings, {therefore, based on the second notice, cannot be held to be illegal. There is no justification on behalf of the petitioner that he did not pMfcr any writ petition challenging the order dated 20th September, 1976, and that order became final. The petitioner now cannot urge that the said order is Void and illegal by filing writ petition in the year 1994. He had filed an application in the year 1985 before the appellate 'authority in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 purporting to review the application under section 13-A of the Act. The appellate authority had not set aside the order dated 20th September, 1976. He had filed an application in the year 1985 before the appellate 'authority in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 purporting to review the application under section 13-A of the Act. The appellate authority had not set aside the order dated 20th September, 1976. The said order dated 20th September, 1976, has become final. MS. It was lastly urged that at present two conflicting orders exist-one passed on 20th September, 1976, in Ceiling Appeal No. 168 of 1976 and the other passed on 21st May, 1977 in Ceiling Appeal No. 176 of 1975. In the first, an area of 8 bighas 10 biswas was declared surplus while in the other It hag been held that the petitioner has no surplus land as stated above. The proceedings, which were taken on the basis of second notice, had shown 24 bighas 20 biswas as grove land and taking into consideration the second notice an area of 8 bighas had been declared as surplus. The order as regards second notice will be valid. So far as the calculation of area of grove land is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a miscalculation about the area of land in terms of irrigated land even if area of grove land is taken as 14 Bighas 2 Biswas. If there is such an apparent mistake, it is open to the petitioner to file application before the Appropriate Authority for correction of mistake under section 13-A of the Act. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided by the Authority concerned possibly within a month from the date of making of the application in accordance with law. 11. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.