R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) THESE five writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (for short "the Act") and are directed against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeals filed by the contesting respondent and setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority. ( 2 ) IN all these petitions, common questions of law and fact were involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 23641 of 1988 shall be the leading case. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are that it was on 24. 6. 1974, the prescribed Authority issued notice to the petitioner through its trustees under Section 10 (2) of the Act as no return was filed in reply of general notice under Section 9 of the Act. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed objection mainly claiming that the land in dispute was owned by a public trust, namely. Lady Parassan Kaur Charitable Trust, (in short the trust), the whole income of which was utilised for charitable purposes of the said trust. The same was, therefore, liable to be exempted from the operation of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 6 (1) (f) of the act. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. After going through the evidence which was on record, the Prescribed Authority held that the notice under section 10 (2) of the Act was bad in law, land in dispute was the property of a charitable trust. After recording the findings on the relevant issues in favour of the petitioner, the proceedings were dropped by judgment and order dated 12. 1. 1968. Against the said judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, no appeal was filed by the State. Same, therefore, became final between the parties and operates as res judicata. The same position existed till date, hence the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in the said judgment were final. From a reading of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, it is evident that the order passed by the prescribed Authority was quite valid, therefore, fresh proceedings could not be initiated. The same position existed till date, hence the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in the said judgment were final. From a reading of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, it is evident that the order passed by the prescribed Authority was quite valid, therefore, fresh proceedings could not be initiated. After several years, the Prescribed Authority again issued another notice under Section 10 (2) of the act against the petitioner on the basis of which two cases. i. e. , 28/9 and 17/18, were registered. The petitioner on receipt of the notice filed objection mainly pleading that judgment and order dated 12. 1. 1968 passed by the Prescribed Authority became final, by which the land in dispute was exempted from the operation of the Act, therefore, the notice dated 24. 6. 1974 was illegal. It was also urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fresh notice could be issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Parties in support of their cases filed evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority held that the income of the land in dispute was still being utilised only for charitable purposes. Having recorded the said findings, the proceedings were dropped by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 25. 10. 1985. Challenging the validity of the said order, the State filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the District Judge, gorakhpur. Ultimately, the said appeal was transferred for disposal to the file of the commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed authority, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh by order dated 11. 10. 1988. In the said judgment, it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 38b of the Act, the order dated 12. 1. 1968 and findings recorded in it did not operate as res judicata or bar for re-initiation of the proceedings. Here, it may be noticed that the finding that the entire income of the land in dispute was being utilised exclusively for charitable/educational purposes, was not reversed ; but it was held that the provisions of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act had no application in the present case. Here, it may be noticed that the finding that the entire income of the land in dispute was being utilised exclusively for charitable/educational purposes, was not reversed ; but it was held that the provisions of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act had no application in the present case. Having recorded the said finding, appeal filed by the State was allowed by judgment and order dated 11. 10. 1988. Hence, the present petitions. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order dated 12. 1. 1968 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No. 28/9, State v. Sardar Surjeet Singh Majithia and case No. 17/18. State v. Surendra Singh Majithia, became final and the findings record in the said orders by the Prescribed Authority operate as res judicata and were binding upon the authorities below, the impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the State supported the validity of the order passed by the appellate Authority and urged that the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was validly issued by the Prescribed Authority in view of the provisions of Section 38b of the Act. That the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in the previous proceedings could not operate as res judicata and were not binding. It was also urged that the land in dispute could not be exempted under Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, therefore, rightly set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and rightly remanded the case to the Prescribed authority for decision afresh. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record as well as the decisions cited by both the sides. ( 6 ) FOR the purposes of just decision in the present case, the following statutory provisions of the act are relevant : "3. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. . . . . (2) ceiling area means the area of land not being land exempted under this Act, determined as such in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 ; (4 ). . . . . . Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. . . . . (2) ceiling area means the area of land not being land exempted under this Act, determined as such in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 ; (4 ). . . . . . (17) tenure-holder means a person who is the holder of a holding, but except in Chapter III does not include (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder ; (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder ;" "6. Exemption of certain land from the imposition of ceiling.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure-holder, namely. . . . . (f) land held from before the first day of May. 1959, by or under a public religious or charitable waqf, trust endowment, or institution the income from which is wholly utilised for religious or charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settlers or members of his family or his descendants ;" "10. Notice to tenure-holder falling to submit a statement or submitting an incomplete or incorrect statement.-- (1 ). . . . . . . . (2) The Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause to be served upon every such tenure-holder in such manner as may be prescribed, a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-section (1) calling upon whom to show cause within a period specified in the notice, why the statement be not taken as correct. The period specified shall not be less than ten days from the date of service of the notice. " 13a. Re-determination of surplus land in certain cases.-- (1) The Prescribed Authority may, at any time, within a period of two years from the date of the notification under sub-section (4) of section 14, rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record : provided that no such rectification which has the effect of increasing the surplus land shall be made unless the Prescribed Authority has given notice to the tenure-holder of its intention to do so and has given him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The provisions of Sections 10, 11, 12, 12a, 13, 14, 15 and 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to any proceeding under sub-section (1), and for purposes of application of Section 10, the notice under the proviso two to sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a notice under Section 9. " "29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land.--Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (a) any land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under a decree or order of any Court or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him ; or (b) any unirrlgated land becomes irrigated as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any groveland loses its character as groveland or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the categories exempted-the ceiling area shall be liable to be re-determined and accordingly the provisions of this Act. except Section 16, shall mutatis mutandis apply. " "30. Determination of surplus land regarding future acquisition.-- (1) Where any land has become liable to be treated as surplus land under Section 29, the tenure-holder shall, within such period as may be prescribed, submit a statement to the Prescribed Authority in the form and in the manner laid down under Section 9 indicating in the statement the plot or plots which he would like to retain as a part of his ceiling area. (2) (a) Where the statement submitted under subsection (1) is accepted by the Prescribed authority, it shall proceed to determine the surplus land accordingly. (b) Where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement required to be submitted under sub-section (1) or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement the Prescribed Authority shall proceed in the manner laid down under Section 10. (c) The provisions of this Act in respect of declaration, acquisition, disposal and settlement of surplus land, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to surplus land covered by this section. " "31. (c) The provisions of this Act in respect of declaration, acquisition, disposal and settlement of surplus land, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to surplus land covered by this section. " "31. Land gained by the recess of river.--Where after the imposition of celling under this Act, any land is, by recession of any river, added to any holding, under any law or custom and the area of the land so added, together with the area of other existing land held by a tenure-holder, exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him (i) such land shall, to the extent necessary to make up the ceiling area applicable to him and contiguous to his existing holding, be deemed to be settled with the tenure-holder subject to the payment of proportionate additional land revenue and on the same terms and conditions as his existing holding ; (ii) Bengal Regulation XI of 1825.--The area in excess of the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holder, shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Bengal Alluvion or Diluvion regulation, 1825, or any custom or usage, for the time being in force, vest in the State government ; and (iii) the land vesting in the State Government under the provisions of clause (ii) shall be surplus land and shall be dealt with as such in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " "38b. Bar against res judicata.--No finding or reason given before the commencement of this section in any proceeding or on any issue (including any order, decree or judgment) by any court, Tribunal or authority in respect of any matter governed by this Act shall bar the retrial such proceeding or issue under this Act, in accordance with the provisions of this Act as amended from time to time. " ( 7 ) A reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions reveals that if in reply of a notice, issued under section 9 of the Act, no return is filed, the Prescribed Authority may issue a notice to the tenure-holder calling upon him to show cause as to why the land (specified by him) be not declared as surplus. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority is appealable. Appeal lies under Section 13 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The orders passed by the Prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority are liable to be corrected in the proceedings under Section 13a of the Act. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority is appealable. Appeal lies under Section 13 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The orders passed by the Prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority are liable to be corrected in the proceedings under Section 13a of the Act. The said power, however, could be exercised only if the orders suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or for correction of a bona fide clerical error. Similarly. Sections 29. 30 and 31 provide for subsequent declaration and determination of surplus land. Admittedly, the contesting respondents did not re-initiate the proceedings in exercise of powers under Sections 13a, 29, 30 or 31 nor the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid sections have been referred to and relied upon for re-initiation of the proceedings. Proceedings were reinitiated in the ordinary course, as if there was no earlier order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Under the Act, there is no other provision for reinitiation of the proceedings. ( 8 ) IN the earlier order dated 12. 1. 1968 and in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority after issuing second notice under Section 10 (2), it was further observed as under : "i have no option, but to exempt the entire land recorded in the name of Lady Parassan Kaur charitable Trust under Section 6 (IX) of imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It may, however, be mentioned that so long as the income of the trust is utilised only for the purpose of education, the above land will be exempted from ceiling and as soon as it is found that the income of the educational society is utilised for other charitable purpose than objects of the Trust it shall be declared as surplus, because the Trust deed will be treated to be a deed under Section 6 (VIII) of the Ceiling Act. The issue is decided accordingly. " It was also held as under :"thus. 18 acres of the land in the case of Sardar Surendra Singh and 33 acres of the land in case of Sardar Surjeet Singh are exempted from ceiling F. Q. land of which comes to 12, 22 acres respectively. As regards groves of other villages, no exemption is allowed as discussed above. The issue is decided accordingly. " . . . . . As regards groves of other villages, no exemption is allowed as discussed above. The issue is decided accordingly. " . . . . . "i, therefore, have no other alternative but to allow exemption on account of the above reasons. As regards the claim of the tenure-holders regarding nali and brick-kilns there is no provisions under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to allow exemption on this account. Hence, it is not allowed to this extent. The issue is decided accordingly. " . . . . . "thus, entire area held by Sardar Surjeet Singh comes to 77-56 acres of the F. Q. land. Since he is entitled to retain 40 acres of land in his celling area as there are no more than five members in his family. 37-57 acres of F. Q. land or 56-30 acres of ordinary land falls surplus in his case. A list of surplus land is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B. " ( 9 ) THE Prescribed Authority in his order dated 25. 10. 1985 held as under: "the then Prescribed Authority Sri Roshan Lal, I. A. S. , vide his order dated 12. 1. 1968 excluded the land recorded in the name of Lady Prassan Kaur Charitable Trust from the holdings of both the tenure-holders on the ground that the entire income of the said land is utilised purely for charitable and educational purposes. The same position stands even at present. Besides this, it reveals from the evidence available on the file that the creation of the Trust is prior to the mandate date since the same position is continuing still now even at present, hence this point operates as res judicata in between the tenure-holder and State of U. P. " . . "here it is also worth to be mentioned that the same land has also been clubbed in the holdings of Sri Surendra Singh Majithta and Sri Surjeet Singh Majithia against whom notices have been issued under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of the Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act which are still pending in this Court. . "here it is also worth to be mentioned that the same land has also been clubbed in the holdings of Sri Surendra Singh Majithta and Sri Surjeet Singh Majithia against whom notices have been issued under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of the Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act which are still pending in this Court. It is not disputed that the duplicacy of the proceedings regarding the determination of surplus land in respect of the same land is illegal and for this very reasons of controversy this proceedings is liable to be quashed, because of the reasons that there is no justification to initiate a separate proceedings in respect of the same land. In view of the above observations, the present proceedings is not maintainable and liable to be quashed. " ( 10 ) HAVING recorded the aforesaid findings, notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was held to be illegal, not maintainable and proceedings were dropped after quashing the said order. The operative portion of the order dated 25. 10. 1985 is quoted hereunder : "in view of the above observations, notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 dated 24. 6. 1974 issued in the name of Lady prassan Kaur Charitable Trust is not maintainable and hence the present proceeding is dropped and the said notice is quashed but it shall be open to State that whenever it comes to know by any means that the income of the land recorded in the name of Lady Prassan Kaur Charitable trust is being utilised for the purposes other than educational and charitable, it may initiate proceedings for determination of the surplus land. " ( 11 ) AS stated above, in the Act there is no provision for second notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and for re-determination of surplus land except Sections 13a, 29, 30 and 31, referred to above. The scope of Section 13a came to be considered before the Honble Supreme Court in devendra Nath-Singh and others v. Civil Judge and others. The scope of Section 13a came to be considered before the Honble Supreme Court in devendra Nath-Singh and others v. Civil Judge and others. 2000 (91) RD 28, in which it was ruled as under : "having examined the provisions of Section 13a and Section 38b of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that under Section 13a, the Prescribed Authority has the power to reopen the matter within two years from the date of the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14 to ratify any apparent mistake which was there on the face of the record. That power will certainly not include the power to entertain fresh evidence and re-examine the question as to whether the two sons, namely. Hamendra and Shailendra were major or not. The power under Section 38b merely indicate that if any finding or decision was there by any ancillary forum prior to the commencement of the said section in respect of a matter which is governed by the Ceiling Act, then such findings will not operate as res judicata in a proceeding under the Act. That would not cover the case where findings have already reached its finality in the very case under the Act. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Prescribed authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the question of majority of the two sons in purported exercise of the power under Section 13a. If the authority had no jurisdiction, question of waiver of jurisdiction does not arise, as contended by learned counsel for respondent. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority as well as that of the high Court are set aside and it is held that in the computation of the ceiling Hamendra and shailendra will be treated as two major sons. " ( 12 ) IN Prakash Singh v. Prescribed Authority. Bilaspur and another, 1985 ALJ 1351 (FB), it was ruled as under : "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, obvious 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. It is, therefore, obvious 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. For example, if the question is as to whether a particular plot of land is irrigated or not has been determined and does not call for any fresh decision. Since there is no amendment to the relevant provisions in this regard by the 1976 Amendment, there would be no necessity of the Prescribed Authority embarking on a fresh enquiry as to whether the said plots are irrigated or not. In such an event the previous order of the Prescribed Authority made before October 10, 1975 will neither stand annulled nor be non est. " ( 13 ) IN view of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as a Full Bench of this Court, it is not necessary for me to deal with the decisions rendered by learned single Judges or division Benches of this Court, to the contrary. The Full Bench, referred to above, has been followed by this Court in number of cases. For the facts and reasons stated above, the issuance of second notice by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10 (2) of the Act was bad in law. Similarly, second notice could not be justified under Sections 29, 30 or 31 of the Act. The authorities below, as Stated above, themselves permitted the State to reinitiate the proceedings, if it is found that the income of the property in dispute is not being utilised for purpose other than the charitable purpose by the petitioner. The authorities below did not record any finding that the income of the property in dispute was being utilised for any other purpose than referred to in section 6 (1) (f), therefore, the view taken, to the contrary, in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is wholly illegal. The same is, therefore, liable to be quashed. ( 14 ) THE judgments and orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 4921 of 1996, Writ Petition No. 4713 of 1996, Writ Petition No. 4726 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 17300 of 1998, which are directed against the judgments and orders dated 6. 3. 1995 and 29. 9. 1995 of the Prescribed authority pursuant to order of remand and the judgment and order dated 30. 3. 1995 and 29. 9. 1995 of the Prescribed authority pursuant to order of remand and the judgment and order dated 30. 1. 1996 passed by the appellate Authority, are also liable to be quashed on the ground that they were passed in contravention of the orders passed by this Court. The authorities below have prima facie committed contempt of this Court inasmuch as they have deliberately and wilfully violated the interim order granted by this Court, dated 8. 12. 1988. It was on 8. 12. 1988 following interim order was granted by this Court : "further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned judgment dated 11. 10. 1998 passed by the commissioner, Gorakhpur Division shall remain stayed for a period of three months. One month time is granted to the standing counsel to file counter-affidavit. Thereafter two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder-affidavit. Let the case be listed for admission and further, orders just thereafter. " ( 15 ) IT is evident from the record that abovenoted order initially it was operative for a period of three months. Certified copies of the aforesaid order were communicated to the authorities concerned immediately it was passed and the certified copies are stated on the record of the case. Authorities below were, thus, bound by the said orders. On 2. 5. 1989, the operation of the order dated 8. 12. 1988 was extended until further orders. The said order is quoted below : "the interim order dated 8. 12. 1988 is extended until further orders of this Court. List this petition for admission on 19. 5. 1989. " ( 16 ) IN view of the said order, the interim order, referred to above, remained operative till date. Authorities below in the abovenoted writ petitions had no jurisdiction to proceed and to pass final orders. For the reasons stated above as well as on the grounds that the orders have been passed by the authorities below in violation of the orders passed by this Court, the orders impugned in the abovenoted writ petitions are liable to be quashed. Authorities below in the abovenoted writ petitions had no jurisdiction to proceed and to pass final orders. For the reasons stated above as well as on the grounds that the orders have been passed by the authorities below in violation of the orders passed by this Court, the orders impugned in the abovenoted writ petitions are liable to be quashed. ( 17 ) IN view of the abovenoted discussions, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned order passed in Writ Petition No. 23641 of 1988 and the impugned orders in the other connected writ petitions including the illegal entries in khatauni in favour of the State in Shreni IV are hereby quashed and the respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioners to continue in possession of land in dispute.