N. L. GANGULY, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the judgments dated 29-8-1987 and 24-3-1988, Annexures 8 and 6 respectively to the writ petition, passed by the Additional Commissioner, acting as Appellate authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the prescribed authority under the said Act. The other prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent-authorities not to give effect to the impugned orders. 2. In the proceedings taken under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, notification under Section 9 (2) of the Act was issued. The tenure holder petitioner did 0ot file any objection or any statement to the said notice. Thereafter notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued by the prescribed authority, which was served on the petitioner on 7-4-1976. After receipt of the notice the petitioner submitted objection dated 21-4-1976 and stated number of family members - the petitioner, his wife and five children wore stated therein. Out of five children three sons and two daughters were there. The daughters were said to be unmarried. One son was said to be major. It was said that during consolidation operation the area of the hold ing of the petitioner only remained as 54 Bigba 12 Biswa 16 Dhur. It was stated that in Khata No. 2 of village Baradih half share was of Maya Kant. The petitioner had given his choice for the land situated in village Kaprauara, Lohra Deora to be declared as surplus land of the petitioner. It was also said that plot numbers and area shown in the notice were not correct. All the plots in question were situated across river Jamuna. 3. The prescribed authority framed necessary issues and gave oppor tunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The petitioner only filed evidence i. e. , certificate from the Welfare Officer, Office of the Accountant General. U. P. showing the number of family members of the petitioner. A list showing detailed of the plots was given by the petitioner which he wanted to be declared as surplus. No other evidence was adduced by him. The petitioner only filed evidence i. e. , certificate from the Welfare Officer, Office of the Accountant General. U. P. showing the number of family members of the petitioner. A list showing detailed of the plots was given by the petitioner which he wanted to be declared as surplus. No other evidence was adduced by him. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner the prescribed authority found that the certificate given by the Welfare Officer of the office of the Accountant general dated 3-5- 1976 shows that in the family of the petitioner, his wife, two sons and two daughter were there. The daughters were unmarried and the sons were minor. Thus the prescribed authority accepting the certificate of the Welfare Officer held that the two sons of the petitioner were minor. The petitioner had not led any evidence to prove otherwise. The prescribed authority since found the number of family members to be one more than five, as such 2 Hct. land was permissible to be retained by the petitioner The petitioner was initially given notice for declaring 161 Bigha 19 Biswa 10 Biswansi as surplus which was reduced by the prescribed authority and 140 Bigha 1 Biswa 7 Biswansi was declared as surplus. It was also mentioned that prior to the amendment in the Act in Case No. 190/184 of 1974 the petitioners surplus land declared was 140 Bigha 6 Biswa 2 Biswansi. Thus no further declaration was needed. The notice issued by the department was rejected by the judgment dated 28-8-1976. 4. An appeal was filed against the aforementioned judgment. The appellate authority found that after the amendment in the Act fresh notice was issued to the petitioner and in response to the said notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act objection was again filed by the petitioner. The appellate authority observed that even in the case the prescribed authority declared 140 Bigha 1 Biswa 7 Dhur as surplus. The learned appellate court observed that this omission was not an illegality but a mere irregularity, which is curable, since the petitioner had notice after the amendment in the Act and had filed his fresh objection and also filed document. 5. The learned appellate court observed that this omission was not an illegality but a mere irregularity, which is curable, since the petitioner had notice after the amendment in the Act and had filed his fresh objection and also filed document. 5. Before the appellate court no objection, so far as the declaration itself is concerned was made and had only pressed before it that the surplus land should be taken as far as possible out of the choice, which he had made before the prescribed authority through his application dated 26-6-1976, The appellate authority maintaining the order about surplus land to the extent of 140 Bigha 1 Biswa 7 Dhur partly allowed the appeal and in taking out the surplus land the choice, so far as it relates to village Bawadih disclosed by the appellant should be considered and adjusted accordingly. The judgment dated 17-11-1976 after the amendment of the Act had become final. 6. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 5 with affidavit of Jaya Kant, petitioner, for deciding the objection afresh after condoning the delay. In the affidavit the petitioner had stated that during consolida tion proceedings sufficient land of his had been reduced. It is said that he was under an impression that the area of the land, which had gone in Consolidation, must have been given to him. When the affidavit was shorn it was said that on the same date the Lekhpal had informed the petitioner that no benefit of the reduction in area of the land on account of the Consoli dation had been given and that no land would be left for the petitioner. Thus it was prayed that the objection be decided on merits afresh. An objection was again filed with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the said objection it was said that half share in the holdings of village Baradih belongs to his brother Maya Kant and in consolidation proceedings such decisions have been given. It was said that in village Deora Kapodora, Lohra there is no land in the name of the petitioner nor any land of the said village belongs to him, which has wrongly been shown in the notice as belonging to him. It was further repeated that during consolidation operations sufficient area of the land has been reduced and the petitioner has not been given any benefit of the said Act. It was further repeated that during consolidation operations sufficient area of the land has been reduced and the petitioner has not been given any benefit of the said Act. It was also said that the Abadi land of the petitioner was not excluded and taken into consideration while calculating the agricultural holding. It was also said that the entire land is unirrigated situated on Jamuna Par. No land was surplus. As such it was prayed that the notice issued to the petitioner be quashed. 7. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was considered by the prescribed authority. The facts given in the application and affidavit for condoning delay in filing of the objection and praying for fresh decision on merits was considered by the prescribed authority. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner and the Naib Tahsildar, who represented the State, and also perusing the original record of the prescribed authority, two orders of the prescribed authority and that of the appellate court, passed earlier, the judgments were given by the prescrib ed authority and the appellate authority declaring the land of the petitioner as surplus, which had become final. The only prayer made before the appellate authority was about choice. Thus after considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with affidavit the prescribed authority was of the view that the petitioner had failed to make out any case for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plea that the area of the land had already been reduced in consolidation operation and his brother Maya Kant was having half share in the said holding was never raised at the time when the reference dated 8-6- 1873 was made. 8. Against the judgment rejecting the Section 5 application for condon ing the delay and redecision of the objection of the petitioner on merits an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Allahabad under Section 13 of the Act, which was heard and decided by the III Additional District Judge, Allahabad. By the judgment in appeal dated 14-7-1983 the learned Addi tional District Judge observed that after service of the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act the appellant had filed objection and the matter was considered and decided on 28-8-1976 by the Prescribed authority and some area of the land was declared surplus. By the judgment in appeal dated 14-7-1983 the learned Addi tional District Judge observed that after service of the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act the appellant had filed objection and the matter was considered and decided on 28-8-1976 by the Prescribed authority and some area of the land was declared surplus. The said judgment was up held by the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge dated 17-11-1976. Direction on the point of choice for declaring surplus was given. The petitioner, no doubt, had expressed his choice on 25-3-1977, thereafter he kept mum. The prescribed authority after consider ing the objection dated 3-1-1978 rejected the same as frivolous. The learned Judge observed that the present land of the petitioner was taken over. He filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad, by which surplus area was adjudged to be final. The appellant gave his choice by paper No. 12/a, which was accepted. Then there was no question of going any further and re-open the case with the help of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Additional District Judge in his judgment dated 14-7-1983 found that everything had been done in the knowledge of the petitioner and nothing was concealed from him. He gave his choice long ago and the learned prescribed authority accepted his choice dated 25-3-1977. He did not raise any objection of fraud or misrepresentation. With the aforesaid findings the appeal was dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramendra Asthana sub mitted that the judgments impugned are patently illegal as the authorities below have not adjudicated upon the matter on merits and have simply said that (he judgments and orders dated 28-8-1976 and 17-11-1976 had attained finality. He submitted that the aforesaid two orders do not decide the dispute on merits. He pointed out that in the said judgments it has been observed that the order dated 30-4-1975 holds field. Sri Asthana submitted that the order dated 30-4-1975 stood abated on account of the amendment in Section 31 (2) and 31 (3) read with Section 4-A, 29 and 30 of the Act. The learned counsel cited a judgment reported in 1986 R. D. 420 - Smt. Sirtaji v. VII Addl. Sri Asthana submitted that the order dated 30-4-1975 stood abated on account of the amendment in Section 31 (2) and 31 (3) read with Section 4-A, 29 and 30 of the Act. The learned counsel cited a judgment reported in 1986 R. D. 420 - Smt. Sirtaji v. VII Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur, to show that after the amendment in the Act of 1976 the pending proceedings under the amended Act stand abated. Fresh notice for determination of surplus land was required under the law. So far as the proposion of law is concerned, the learned counsel is right in making a submission that the proceedings under the unamended Act stood abated after the amendment of the Act of 1976. It is necessary to examine whether the proceedings after the amendment in the Act of 1976 whether fresh notice was issued, opportunity was given to the petitioner to file objection and lead evidence and whether the authorities below applied their mind in deciding the objection in accordance with the amended pro visions of law. 10. From the facts enumenrated above, it is clearly established that the proceedings taken under the Principal Act had already been decided. There after when the amending Act came into force fresh notice was given to the petitioner, which was duly served and objection filed. The petitioner did submit a copy of the certificate issued by the Welfare, Officer, Office of the Accountant General, U. P. showing the numbers in the family. Besides that the petitioner had urged for declaring the plots of particular village and their numbers as surplus. This was done by the petitioner with full knowledge and there was no misrepresentation or fraud played upon him. The appeal against the said judgment was filed by the petitioner had only pressed about giving of plots mentioned in the application dated 26-6-1976 for taking as surplus of the petitioned Thus it is apparent that the applica tion of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on 23-2-1981 was wholly misconceived. There was no occasion or any case made out for condoning the delay and setting aside the orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Amended Act of 1976. There was no occasion or any case made out for condoning the delay and setting aside the orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Amended Act of 1976. The objec tion and plea raised along with Section 5 application were new pleas that half of the share in the Khata belongs to Maya Kant and sufficient land had been reduced in consolidation operation and they were such pleas which should have been and could have been taken by the petitioner when the objection was filed by him after service of the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Amending Act of 1976. No doubt, plea of reduction in area in con solidation was stated in the objection submitted by the petitioner after notice under Section 10 (2) of the amended Act but the petitioner had not led evidence to show that any area was reduced in consolidation or his brother Maya Kant was co-tenure holder in the holdings. The consolidation operations had taken place much earlier from the date of filing of the objection by the peti tioner. The prescribed authority and the appellate authority were correct and justified in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision reported in 1985 ALJ 1351 (FB) Prakash Singh v. Prescribed Authority which is also a decision showing that since after the U. P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 determination of surplus land under Section 10 (2) of the Principal Act fresh notice is mandatory, the earlier proceedings stand abated. This autho rity also is of no assistance to the petitioner. The prescribed authority and the appellate authority both have recorded findings that the petitioner was served with notice under Section 10 (2) of the amended Act, he too filed objection and adduced evidence only on one point, which was accepted and for that two hectares of additional land was left for one additional person in the family. The petitioner had given the choice. That was accepted. 12. It may be noted that the learned counsel submitted that after the Amended Act of 1976 the proceedings under the Principal Act stood abated. The petitioner had given the choice. That was accepted. 12. It may be noted that the learned counsel submitted that after the Amended Act of 1976 the proceedings under the Principal Act stood abated. The Full Bench observed as under : "it will be evident from the, above that there is indeed no provision for abatement of any order passed previously in a proceeding upon the issue of a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act where a fresh notice under the same provisions is issued by the prescribed authority after the Amending Acts of 1974 and 1976. The reason is obvious. It is not that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 31 gives a carteblanche power to the prescribed Autho rity to redetermine the surplus land whenever a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) is issued. The notice will be valid only where it is necessary in view of the amendments brought about to the Princi pal Act by the aforesaid Amendment Acts, If the amendments in the Principal Act do not call for any change in the determina tion of surplus land, the fresh notice under Section 10 (2) would not confer power on the Prescribed Authority to embark upon a re- assessment or redetermination of the surplus land. It is only in those cases where the amendments require the Prescribed Authority to redetermine surplus land that the notice under Section 10 (2) be issued. It is, therefore, abvious that there may be cases where the earlier decision as a whole may not require modification at all, or there may be cases where only partial modification may become necessary. " 13. The Full Bench also considered about the effect of the earlier decision if a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) is issued. The Full Bench was pleased to observe; "what would be the effect of the previous decision if a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) is issued ? On the points which have already been decided, the earlier decision will operate as res judicata. It would have no effect on the new grounds which are taken for reducing the surplus area further in pursuance of the Amending Act. The obvious reason is that fresh grounds would raise new controversies which have been not decided. That would have to be considered afresh on the evidence of the parties. " 14. It would have no effect on the new grounds which are taken for reducing the surplus area further in pursuance of the Amending Act. The obvious reason is that fresh grounds would raise new controversies which have been not decided. That would have to be considered afresh on the evidence of the parties. " 14. The decision of the Full Bench thus shows that the judgments of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority do not suffer from any error of law. 15. Lastly the learned counsel cited the decision reported in 1979 ALJ 1259 - Satya Pal Singh v Slate of U. P. and others, for the proposition that where pending proceedings under the Ceiling Act reduction in the area of tenure holder was brought about in proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation at Holdings Act (5 of 1954) such reduction must be taken into account in determining the ceiling area. This ruling has iu application in the present case of the petitioner. The consolidation proceedings were taken much before the proceedings initiated under the Principal Act. In the objection under the first notice no plea of consolidation was raised by the petitioner and after the Amending Act of 1976, no doubt, such a plea was taken in the objection but the petitioner had not filed any document, or evidence to show that during the pendency of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act the area of his holding was in any manner reduced during consolidation operations. No documentary or oral evidence in this aspect was led by the petitioner. Thus the submission of the learned counsel that the reduction in the area of land in consolidation operations should have been taken is misconceived. No such a plea was substantiated or pressed before the prescribed authority and the appellate authority. Only choice was given for declaring surplus, which was accepted. 16. An application has been filed on behalf of 15 persons praying that their names be impleaded as respondents No. 3 to 17 in the writ petition. In the application end affidavit it has been said that the aforementioned 15 persons are Patta-holders of the land declared surplus. Their names have been mutated in respect of the land mentioned in the Khatauni of village Baradih. Copy of the Khatauni has been annexed. In the application end affidavit it has been said that the aforementioned 15 persons are Patta-holders of the land declared surplus. Their names have been mutated in respect of the land mentioned in the Khatauni of village Baradih. Copy of the Khatauni has been annexed. The application was direct ed to be listed with previous papers by the order of this court dated 12-10-1994. The application for impleadment remained on record and no orders for impleadment hate been passed. The petitioner had filed the writ petition and obtained an interim order staying dispossession on 12-10-1987. On the basis of the interim order the petitioner continued to remain in possession over 140 Bigha 1 Biswa 7 Dhur land and the landless agricultural labourers-allottees of the surplus land were deprived of the benevalent legislation. Since the writ petition is being decided. I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by impleading these 15 persons in the writ petition. The applicants, who sought for impleadment, claiming themselves to be allottees of the surplus land of the petitioner, may submit a copy of the judgment before the appropriate authority for delivery of possession to them. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Petition dismissed. .