R. H. ZAIDI, J. Both these petitions arise out of the proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings, Act, 1960 for short the Act and are directed against common judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 23-9- 80 and the appellate authority dated 17-8-81 petitioners pray for quash ing of the said orders. 2. Both these petitions were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The relevant facts of the case, as unfolded in the writ petition and ascer tained from the other material on the record, are that on the enforcement of the Act, a notice was issued to the petitioner Nawab Nadir Shah Khan under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Total area of the holding was shown as 21. 82 hectares and Nawab Nadir Shah Khan was called upon to show as to why the area measuring 14. 02 hectare (in terms of the irrigated land) be not declared as surplus land. On receipt of the said notice Nawab Nadir Shah Khan filed his objection pleading that the land in dispute (which is situated in three districts i. e. Bijnor, Bareilly and Pilibhit) was sub ject-matter of three private trusts Wakfs Alal-aulad". First Wakf was created by means or registered wakf deed dated 17-12-1919 by Mohd. Shah Khan, second vide registered wakf deed dated 26-2-1920, by Smt. Durre Naz Begum and third vide registered wakf deed dated 14-12-1992 by Qamar Shah Khan. Under the said wakf deeds, Smt. Saeed Jahan Begum, Smt. Salim Begum, Sri Khurshid Ahmad Khan and Nawab Nadir Shah Khan were beneficiaries having their shares in proportion indicated in the said wakf deeds. It was contended that three wakf- deeds in question were separate; but in the said notice the subject-matter of three wakf deed was wrongly clubbed together. It was further pleaded that the ceiling area should be determined in accordance with the provision of law and Nawab Nadir Shah Khan who was only a Mutawalli of the wakf could not be treated as tenure-holder. It was urged that the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority in respect of the land in dispute was liable to be dis charged and no land out of the land in dispute could be declared as surplus. It was urged that the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority in respect of the land in dispute was liable to be dis charged and no land out of the land in dispute could be declared as surplus. In the writ petition No. 10868 of 1983, the pedigree of the family of the petitioners has been given in paragraph 4, which is reproduced below:- Durre Najaf Begum M. S. Khan Qamar Shak Khan (Died issueless) Anwar Shaukat Saied Salim Khur- Jam- Shah Shah Jahan Jahan shid shed Khan Khan Begum Begum Jahan Jahan (dead) died is- (petiti- Begum Begum Nadir sueless oner) (dead) (dead) Shah son Khan Khur- shid Ahmad Khan 4. The correctness of the said pedigree has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. In has simply been stated to be not admitted. In support of the facts stated in the objections, oral and documentary, evidence was produced by Sri Nawab Nadir Shah Khan and others, including the wakf deeds referred to above. The Prescribed Authority has dismissed the objection filed by Nawab Nadir Shah Khan and declared 14. 02 hectares land as surplus vide its judgment and order dated 31-3-79. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority an appeal was filed by the petitioners. Appellate authority reversed the find ings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and held that the land in dispute was Bhumidhari land of the wakfs. Having recorded the said findings, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside and the case was remanded to it for decision afresh vide judgment and order dated 17-1-1980. In the said order it was held as under: "it may be pointed out that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the certified copies of Khewat and Kahatauni of Zamindari period and post-Zamindari period in respect of village Ghangara Piparia, Qasimpur, Sheopuri, Manzoorpur Tulsi and Mirpur Durga which are on record in which waqf-ul-aulad is recorded as Zamindar and the land is recorded as Zamindars grove land of class (4) in the Khatauni. In such case on the enforcement of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Zamindars grove land become Bhumidhari land of erstwhile Zamindari namely Waqf-ul-aulad. In such case on the enforcement of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Zamindars grove land become Bhumidhari land of erstwhile Zamindari namely Waqf-ul-aulad. The Prescribed Authority also omitted to consider the statement of Lekhpal of village Jantorpur who stated that on the basis of Settle ment record of 1344 Fasli brought by him that the land in question of village Jahapur as recorded in the Settlement of Zamindars grove in the Khewat and Waqf way recorded Zamin dar, consequently waqf became the Bhumidhar of the land in question. " The said order has become final. 6. After remand, the Prescribed Authority again decided the case against the petitioners holding that Nawab Nadir Shah Khan was tenure holder of the land in dispute and the interest of the beneficiaries for the same cannot be con sidered separately. The Prescribed Authority again declared 14. 02 hectares (in terms of irrigated land) as surplus by judgment and order dated 23-9-80. The validity of the said order passed by the Prescribed Authority was again challenged before the appellate authority. The appel late authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide judgment and order dated 17-8-81. Petitioners, thereafter, ap proached this Court and filed the above noted petitions. 7. The writ petition No, 10868 of 1983 has been filed by Smt. Saleem Jahan Begum, who is one of the beneficiaries of the aforesaid wakfs, other by Nawab Nadir Shah Khan in his capacity as beneficiary and Mutawalli of the wakf. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which the material facts stated above have not been disputed. However, the judgment and or ders passed by the authorities below have been supported. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally in treating the land in dispute as private and personal holding of Nawab Nadir Shah Khan and determining the ceiling area, completely ignoring the provisions of the Act. It has been urged that under sub-sec tion (5) of Section 5 of the Act, the petitioners or any one of them could not be treated as tenure-holder of the land in dispute. It has been urged that the land after its dedication to God and creation of wakf vests in Almighty God and cannot be treated as personal property of any body. It has been urged that the land after its dedication to God and creation of wakf vests in Almighty God and cannot be treated as personal property of any body. The findings recorded by the appellate authority in its order of remand dated 17-1-80 having become final, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to go behind them. The beneficiaries are entitled to their shares out of the usufruct of the Waqfs. Three wakfs have got their separate entities, having three sets of beneficiaries. The subject-matter of the said wakfs, therefore, cannot be clubbed together. It was urged that on determination of the ceiling area in accordance with law, there remains no land to be declared as surplus and the orders passed by the authorities below were liable to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, learned Stand ing Counsel supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Nawab Nadir Shah Khan in the revenue papers Land in dispute, therefore, could not be treated as wakf property and Nawab Nadir Shah Khan as Mutawalli. The appellate authority did not commit any error of law in determining the ceiling limit, therefore, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival sub missions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. It is not disputed that the land in dispute was subject-matter of the aforesaid three private trusts (Wakfs-Alal-Aulad) and same is also recorded in the revenue papers as wakf properties under the Management of Mutawalli. In Syed Simtey Hasan v. Joint Director of Con solidation, 1967 RD 355, it was ruled that on enforcement of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, the Bhumidhari rights in the wakf land, shall go to the whole body of the Mutwallis/beneficiaries. The case, there after came to be considered by a Full Bench of this court inmoattarraza v. Joint Direc tor of Consolidation, 1969alj1448. It was ruled that although one Co-Mutawalli might be personally cultivating the land, the proprietorary right in respect of which was subject-matter of wakf, no Bhumid hari right in the said land could accrue in favour of the Mutwalli. It was ruled that although one Co-Mutawalli might be personally cultivating the land, the proprietorary right in respect of which was subject-matter of wakf, no Bhumid hari right in the said land could accrue in favour of the Mutwalli. The Bhumidhari right would accrue in the land in favour of God under Section 18 (1) (a) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. He was cultivating the land as Mutwalli/manager/god. 13. Thus in view of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the fact the order dated 17-1-80 has become final and further because the land in dispute is recorded as wakf property in the revenue papers, the land in dispute could not be treated as personal property/holding of Nawab Nadir Shah Khan, who was nothing but Mutawalli or Manager of the wakf. The authorities below have committed error apparent on the face of the record in hold ing to the contrary. 14. Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act provides as under: "5 (5 ). In respect of any holding held by any private trust - (a) Where the shares of its beneficiaries in the income from such trust are known or determinable the beneficiaries shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to have the shares in that holding in the same proportions as their respec tive shares in the income from such trust. (b) in any other case, it shall be governed by clause (e) of sub-section (3 ). " 15. According to and under aforesaid provisions beneficiaries under the private trusts (wakfs-alal-aulad) are to be treated as tenure holders. 16. Clause (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, provides as under :- "5 (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec tions (4) (5) and (6) and the ceiling area for purpose of sub- section (1) shall be- (e) in the case of any other tenure-holder, 7. 30 hectares of irrigated land. " 17. In the aforesaid wakf deeds the shares of the beneficiaries have been men tioned, therefore, there was no difficulty in determining their shares in the land in dispute. 30 hectares of irrigated land. " 17. In the aforesaid wakf deeds the shares of the beneficiaries have been men tioned, therefore, there was no difficulty in determining their shares in the land in dispute. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, and decisions of this Court, the ownership of the land in dispute vests in Almighty God, but the question of owner ship is irrelevant inasmuch as the beneficiaries are to be treated as tenure holder to the extent of their shares in the income of the said wakf. Thus the question of Ownership is of no consequence or im portance. Even if in the cases, where the share of the beneficiaries have not been mentioned in the wakf deeds each of the beneficiaries shall be entitled to retain 7. 30 hectares land in Uttar Pradesh. The total area of land in dispute is 21-02 hec tare therefore, all the beneficiaries noted above, were entitled to much more land, if calculated in accordance with law. 18. However, since from the material on record, the calculation of shares of the beneficiaries is not possible, as the copies of the wakf-deeds referred to above do not form part of the record of these petitions, I, therefore, leave the question for deter mination of shares of the beneficiaries for decision by the Prescribed Authority. The shares of the beneficiaries in the wakfs shall be determined strictly in accordance with law as provided under sub-section (5) of Sections of the Act as indicated above. 19. In view of the aforesaid discus sions, both these petitions deserve to be allowed. 20. Both the writ petitioners succeed and are allowed. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 23-9-80 and by the Appellate Authority dated 17-8-81 are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. No orders as to costs. Petitions allowed. .