S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Perused the record. 3. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Iqbal Bahadur Singh treating him to be the ex clusive tenure-holder of a large number of agricultural holdings. The notice issued under Section 10 of the Act was contested by Iqba! Bahadur Singh, the recorded tenure-holder. The matter came up for considera tion before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8840 of 1979 decided on 12-11 -80. This writ petition had been filed by Sri iqbal Bahadur Singh, the sole recorded tenure-holder challenging the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority whereunder the ex tent of the surplus area held by the aforesaid tenure-holder had been determined. 4. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 12-11-80 referred to hereinabove indicates that only two sub missions had been made by Sri Iqbal Bahadur Singh, the recorded tenure- holder. This Court vide the aforesaid decision in the aforesaid case allowed the writ petition in part and restoring the appeal of Iqbal Bahadur Singh on its original number directed the appellate authority to decide the questions indicated in the judgment afresh according to law. These questions were about the nature of plot No. 1094 of village Ramipur and the land of the petitioner in village Magarasa and Kathoghan. The appellate authority was re quired to find out whether the aforesaid plot and the land could be taken as irrigated or unirrigated as contemplated under the Act. The second question was in regard to the alleged transfers which were covered under the issues No. 8 and 9 framed by the Prescribed Authority. 5. During the pendency of the remanded appeal Sri Iqbal Bahadur Singh, the recorded tenure-holder died and was substituted by his wife, Jugraj Kumar as the legal representative of the deceased tenure- holder. The appellte authority in its turn partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in respect of the matters involving under questions No. 1, 2 and 3 framed by the appellate authority keeping in view the observations and directions con tained in the decision of this Court dated 12-11-80. 6. The appellte authority in its turn partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in respect of the matters involving under questions No. 1, 2 and 3 framed by the appellate authority keeping in view the observations and directions con tained in the decision of this Court dated 12-11-80. 6. During the pendency of the case before the Prescribed Authority subsequent to the remand by the appellate authority. Vide its order dated 29-2-88, the present petitioner filed an application claiming that he was the son of the original tenure- holder Iqbal Bahadur Singh and was born on 2-1-52. He claimed to have half share in the ancestral Sir, Khudkast and grove asserting that the notice taking the entire holding as belonging to Iqbal Bahadur Singh alone was manifestly erroneous. It was requested that the extent of surplus holding be determined taking into consideration the fact that the recorded tenure-holder Iqbal Bahadur Singh had only half share therein. 7. The Prescribed Authority did not enter into the controversy raised by the petitioner in the proceeding which were being undertaken pursuant to the order of remand as the Prescribed Authority was of the view that the nature of controversy which had come up for consideration before it was very limited and it was neither pos sible nor permissible to expand the scope of the enquiry. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 18-1-90 granted some relief to the widow of deceased tenure-holder Iqbal Bahadur Singh and accepted the choice given by her. 8. The order dated 18-1-90 passed by the Prescribed Authority became final as against Jugraj Kumar who had been sub stituted as the only heir and legal repre sentative of the deceased tenure-holder Sri Iqbal Bahadur Singh. 9. However, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 18-1-90, the present petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appel late authority vide the impugned order dated 24-2-90. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Prescribed Authority has manifestly erred in not deter mining the claim of the petitioner on merits. It has been asserted that once the objection had been filed by the petitioner claiming half share in the land in dispute it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to determine the claim of the petitioner which it has failed to do. It has been asserted that once the objection had been filed by the petitioner claiming half share in the land in dispute it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to determine the claim of the petitioner which it has failed to do. The contention is that in the circumstances the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as by the Prescribed Authority deserve to be quashed. 11. In the present case what I find is that right from the very beginning the proceedings were being contested by the sole recorded tenure-holder Iqbal Bahadur Singh who had never come up with the case that his share in the land in dispute was only half and the remaining belonged to his son, the petitioner. In fact even after the remand by this Court vide its order dated 12-11- 80, no effort was made by the petitioner to agitate his claim as after the death of the sole recorded tenure-holder Iqbal Bahadur Singh only his widow Jugraj Kumari came forward and got herself substituted as the only heir and legal representative of the deceased tenure-holder who was the appel lant. Smt. Jugraj Kumari did not challenge the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 18-1-90 and submitted to the said order. 12. Considering the implications aris ing under the directions issued by this Court as well as the direction issued by the appel late court subsequent to the remand by this Court there can be no manner of doubt that the scope of the enquiry before the Prescribed Authority could not be enlarged so as to include the determination in respect of a claim which had never been raised either before this Court or before the appel late court earlier. The appellate authority as well as the Prescribed Authority were bound to remain confined to the matters which were required to be decided by this Court. 13. However, it was open to the petitioner to challenge the order declaring the agricultural holdings as surplus in case he claimed any interest therein as a co-tenure-holder or in any other manner. Such an objection could be entertained in the proceedings under Section 11 (2) of the Act, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Dilbagh Singh v. State of U. P. , 1978 ALJ 717. Such an objection could be entertained in the proceedings under Section 11 (2) of the Act, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Dilbagh Singh v. State of U. P. , 1978 ALJ 717. The petitioner was not recorded as a tenure-holder in any capacity whatsoever in the revenue records pertaining to the land in dispute. The Prescribed Authority was, therefore, not bound to issue any notice to the petitioner. However, this could not prevent the petitioner from raising an ob jection under Section 11 (2) of the Act claiming tenurial interest in the land in dis pute and if such claim was established in accordance with law the agricultural hold ing to the extent of his interest therein as a co- tenure-holder could not be declared to be surplus and dealt with accordingly. 14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dis missed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy envisaged under Section 11 (2) of the Act for redressal of his grievan ces as against the area declared as surplus. Petition dismissed. .