PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE, J. Although this matter is appearing for admission in the presence of both the parties, but it appears from the office report that the writ petition is filed out of time by five days. 2. Having considered the strong case in favour of the petitioner, the said delay in moving the writ petition of five days is condoned, and, by the consent of both the parties, the entire writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 3. Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is appearing before the Court, and placed following facts for consideration of this Court. 4. Pradum Naresh being adopted son of Sri Chunni Lal is the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, and the writ petition is directed against the judg ment and order dated February 18, 1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority Ceil ing, Banda being respondent No. 3 whereby the said authority has declared 0- 13-10 Bighas of land as surplus. 5. Initially a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1973 (from hereinafter referred to as Act) was served upon Sri Chunni Lal some times in 1974. 6. Said Sri Chunni Lal filed objection to the aforesaid notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, and, had taken point that he had no surplus land which could be counted as surplus under the Act, and, the said notice was illegal as "unirrigated" area was shown as "irrigated" area and the land of other tenure- holders was included in the aforesaid notice. 7. Ultimately the said authority declared 2-9-8 Bighas of land "as surplus". 8. Against the aforesaid order, the said Sri Chunni Lal preferred an appeal and by the judgment dated September 5, 1975 the District Judge, Banda held that the notice served on the petitioner was illegal as in view of Section 9 of the Act, no land of the petitioner was surplus. Therefore the case was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for taking afresh decision. 9. Pursuant to the said order of remand, in 1981 a fresh notice was served upon the said Sri Chunni Lal by the Prescribed Authority to declare some land as surplus. Therefore the case was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for taking afresh decision. 9. Pursuant to the said order of remand, in 1981 a fresh notice was served upon the said Sri Chunni Lal by the Prescribed Authority to declare some land as surplus. In the meantime said Sri Chunni Lal had died and the petitioner, who was the adopted son of Sri Chunni Lal filed objection before the Prescribed Authority on November 17, 1981 on the ground inter alia that the said notice was illegal as the total holding of the petitioner, which was shown in the said notice was more than the actual and that four Bighas of unirrigated land has been wrongly shown as irrigated land. He further objected that in respect of another three Bighas of land he has lost his rights and title therein as Shri Gajraj, Shri Phool Chand and Sri Dhani who were in continuous cultivatory possession over these plots had mutated their name under Section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and, said land should not be clubbed with the land of the petitioner for the purpose of computation of ceiling. 10. It was also submitted that the said notice was served on the basis of old revenue records and that in most of the petitioners land only one crop is grown but it has been wrongly shown in the notice as irrigated land, and that in D/2 11/2 Bighas of agricultural land petitioners house is situated but this land has been wrongly included in the said notice, that in respect of plot Nos. 543 and 505 petitioners well, cattle shed and a pertinent land for Khalihan are existing but these too have been shown as irrigated land in most illegal manner, and, as such, according to the petitioner no land should be declared as surplus. 11. According to the petitioner the Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 3) without appreciating the real controversy involved in the case and totally ignoring the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner in respect of his case, by his judg ment dated May 13, 1982 declared 1. 53 acres of land as "surplus". 12. Having aggrieved by the impugned order dated May 13, 1982, the petitioner again preferred Revenue Appeal being No. 35/82. 13. 53 acres of land as "surplus". 12. Having aggrieved by the impugned order dated May 13, 1982, the petitioner again preferred Revenue Appeal being No. 35/82. 13. This time also the Appellate Authority being Special Judge, Banda had allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated May 18, 1983 and excluded 1 Bighas 13 Biswas and 10 Biswansi land on account of excess area, double entry and Abadi land, remanded back the case back to the Prescribed Authority to determine the land held in possession of Gajraj, Phool Chandra and Dhani and to determine their rights on the aforesaid basis". 14. Now, the respondent No. 3 purported to consider the Khatauni 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli and statement of the Assistant Record Keeper and found that on the relevant date i. e. June 8, 1973 Sri Gajraj had mutated his rights in respect of plot No. 449/2 area about 0-18-0 and Sri Dhani matured his rights on plot No. 238, total area 1-14-0 and held that this land was wrongly clubbed in the notice of the petitioner. 15. The respondent No. 3, however, by his impugned judgment dated February 18, 1986 declared 0-13- 10 Bighas of land as "surplus" as per Annexure-4 which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although on repeated occasions the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for proper determination of ceiling of the land under the aforesaid Act, but, unfortunately the Prescribed Authority choosen not to proceed in accordance with law and as per the directions contained in the judgment of the Special Judge, Banda, being the court of appeal. 17. This Court after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned coun sel for the petitioner and having gone through the petition, wanted to know from the learned standing counsel as to whether he has any decision to support such an impugned order dated February 18, 1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority for the second time. 18. On this context learned standing counsel, however, placed reliance on the averments made in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter affidavit which of course speak about the original order of determination of ceiling dated May 13, 1982 and the order of remand dated May 18, 1983 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 35 of 1982. 19. 18. On this context learned standing counsel, however, placed reliance on the averments made in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter affidavit which of course speak about the original order of determination of ceiling dated May 13, 1982 and the order of remand dated May 18, 1983 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 35 of 1982. 19. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of both the parties and having considered the facts of the case, this court is of the view that the im-pugened order passed for the second time on February 18, 1986 by the Prescribed Authority, being respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and, the same is being set aside. 20. Respondent and each one of them are restrained from treating any land of the petitioner "as surplus", in any manner whatsoever. 21. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. , Writ petition allowed .