YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 11. 5. 1983, and 23. 6. 1988 passed by Prescribed authority and the order dated 17. 3. 1988 passed by the appellate authority under UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. ( 2 ) UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was enacted to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh. This Act as initially enacted is referred to as the Principal Act. A notice was issued to Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (the tenure holder) in 1962 for determination of land in excess of ceiling area under the Principal Act. The tenure holder filed writ petition no. 1511 of 1962 challenging the constitutionality of the Principal Act. This writ petition was dismissed by a single judge on 19. 9. 1963. Special appeal no. 659 of 1963 against this decision was dismissed on 10. 3. 1971. ( 3 ) THE proceeding under the Principal Act continued after dismissal of aforesaid special appeal. In the meantime the tenure holder executed numerous transfer-deeds in 1970-71 in favour different persons. The Principal Act was also amended by UP Imposition of ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (UP Act no. 18 of 1973) (the Amending Act ). The Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act is hereinafter referred to as the Amended Act. There are few other amendments but are not relevant here. ( 4 ) SECTION 19 of the Amending Act is transitory provisions and provides for pending proceeding. In view of this section a fresh notice was issued to the tenure holder. He filed his objections against the same. These objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 31. 1. 1977 and the excess land was determined under the Principal Act but some land was excluded in view of interim order granted by this court in the writ petition no. 3919 of 1976 Shakuntala Shishu Lok vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills and others (Shakuntalas case ). ( 5 ) THE tenure holder filed an appeal from the order dated 31. 1. 1977. Some of the persons to whom land was transferred in 1970-71 (referred to as the transferees) also filed appeals. The appeal of the tenure holder was dismissed on 31. 3. ( 5 ) THE tenure holder filed an appeal from the order dated 31. 1. 1977. Some of the persons to whom land was transferred in 1970-71 (referred to as the transferees) also filed appeals. The appeal of the tenure holder was dismissed on 31. 3. 1978 but the land involved in Shakuntalas case was excluded as was done by the prescribed Authority. The appeals of the transferees were also dismissed on the same date but by a different order holding that they do not have any right in the proceeding under the Principal Act. The tenure holder filed writ petition no. 4510 of 1978 against these orders. The transferees also filed two writ petitions namely, WP no. 6206 and 7102 of 1978. These three writ petitions were consolidated and were dismissed on 2. 7. 1980. The tenure holder then filed special leave petition no. 8721 of 1980 against this judgement. The transferees who had filed WP No. 6206 of 1978 also filed Special Leave petition No. 11533 of 1980 against the judgement dated 2. 7. 1980. ( 6 ) SHAKUNTALAS case was dismissed by this court on 28. 3. 1979. After its dismissal, the Prescribed Authority started proceeding for re-calculating the excess area under the Principal Act after including land in Shankuntalas case. The proceeding for calculating excess land under the Amended Act was also taken in view of section 19 of the Amending Act. During these proceedings the SLP of the tenure holder was dismissed on 1. 12. 1980 with some observations. The tenure holder filed objections before the Prescribed Authority. The objections of the tenure holder in proceeding under the Principal Act for including the land involved in Shakuntalas case were dismissed on 11. 5. 1983 by the prescribed Authority but his objection in proceeding under the Amended Act are still pending. ( 7 ) THE tenure holder filed an appeal. During pendency of this appeal, the SLP No. 11533 of 1980 of the transferees was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30. 3. 1984 with some observations; some clarifications were also made on 2. 4. 1984. The transferees filed some documents before the appellate court in the appeal filed by the tenure holder. The appellate court by its order dated 17. 8. 1984 remitted an issue to the Prescribed Authority for recording its findings. The Prescribed Authority recorded its finding on 17. 5. 1985. 4. 1984. The transferees filed some documents before the appellate court in the appeal filed by the tenure holder. The appellate court by its order dated 17. 8. 1984 remitted an issue to the Prescribed Authority for recording its findings. The Prescribed Authority recorded its finding on 17. 5. 1985. The transferees filed their objections against these findings before the appellate court. During pendency of this appeal and the objections, UP Act No. 3 of 1986 came into force and the jurisdiction of the appellate court as well as pending appeals was transferred from District Courts to the Commissioner. The appeal as well as objections of the transferees were transferred to the Commissioner, who by his order dated 17. 3. 1988 dismissed the appeal of the tenure holder as well as objections of the transferees. The appellate court held that: ?the surplus land under Principal Act has been determined (as is to be done in first stage under section 19 of the Amending Act) and the prescribed Authority may declare specific plots as surplus under the Principal Act. ?the tenure holder has been given notice under the Amended Act and he has already filed an objection. The Prescribed Authority should now determine surplus land under the Amended Act (as required to be done in the second stage ). ( 8 ) THE Prescribed Authority in pursuance of the appellate courts order declared specific plots as surplus on 23. 6. 1988 under the Principal Act though no order was passed for determination of surplus land under the Amended Act; that proceeding is still pending. The tenure holder and transferees have filed WP No. 13200 of 1988 and writ petition no. 12981 of 1988 against these orders. ( 9 ) I have heard counsel for the parties. Following points arise for determination: (I)WHAT is the effect of section 19 (transitory provision) of the Amending Act? How should proceeding for excess land be taken after amendment of the Principal Act? (ii)The transferees claim their rights on basis of transfer deeds in the year 1970-71. Are they entitled to notice and opportunity in proceeding under the Principal Act? (iii)What is the effect of the observations of the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLPs filed by the tenure holder and the transferees? Do they nullify the proceeding under the Principal Act? (ii)The transferees claim their rights on basis of transfer deeds in the year 1970-71. Are they entitled to notice and opportunity in proceeding under the Principal Act? (iii)What is the effect of the observations of the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLPs filed by the tenure holder and the transferees? Do they nullify the proceeding under the Principal Act? Do they direct proceeding to be taken only under the Amended Act and not under the Principal Act? Do they give right to the transferees to be heard in proceeding under the Principal Act even if they are not entitled to be heard in those proceeding under the law? ( 10 ) BEFORE I consider the provisions of section 19 of the Amending Act it would be appropriate to discuss the provisions and the date of enforcement of the Principal Act and the Amended Act. ( 11 ) SECTION 1 (3) of the Principal Act (See Appendix 1) provides that the Act will come into force at once but in the area mentioned in section 2 of the Principal Act it will come into force from such date as may be notified. In this case section 2 of the Act has no application. The Principal Act was published in UP Gazette dated 3. 1. 1961 and it came into force on that date in respect of the land in dispute. Section 4 of the Principal Act (see Appendix 1) states that ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder would be calculated after taking into account the land held by him in the State in his own right, whether in his own name or ostensibly in the name of any other person. Section 4 (2) (a) of the Principal Act provides ceiling limit to be 40 acres of fair quality land. This ceiling limit is more in case the family of tenure holder consists of more than 5 members {section 4 (2) (b) of the Principal Act}. Section 5 of the Principal Act (See Appendix 1) states that no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold an area in excess of ceiling area applicable to him from the date of enforcement of the Principal Act. The effect of section 5 (2) and 5 (3) of the Principal Act is that all transfers after 20. 8. Section 5 of the Principal Act (See Appendix 1) states that no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold an area in excess of ceiling area applicable to him from the date of enforcement of the Principal Act. The effect of section 5 (2) and 5 (3) of the Principal Act is that all transfers after 20. 8. 1959 except for those mentioned in section 5 (3) of the Principal Act are to be ignored while calculating ceiling area. The transfers in this case are after 20. 8. 1959 and are not covered by section 5 (3) of the Principal Act. They have to be ignored while calculating ceiling area under the Principal Act. Section 6 of the Principal Act provides for exemptions (not relevant here ). The result is that the tenure holder (whose family is not more than 5 members) is entitled to hold only 40 acres of fair quality land with effect from 3. 1. 1961 and the transfer deeds by him are to be ignored. ( 12 ) THE Principal Act has been drastically amended by the Amending Act. Section 5 of the Amended Act (see Appendix-2) provides that from the date of commencement of the Amending Act no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him. The date of commencement of the Amending Act is 8. 6. 1973. Section 6 of the Amended Act provides for exemptions but they are different than section 6 of the Principal Act. Section 5 (3) of the Amended Act provides that a tenure holder not having a family of more than 5 member is entitled to hold not more than 7. 3 hectares of irrigated land. In case family consists of more than 5 members, then he is entitled to some more land as mentioned in section 5 (3) (b) of the Amended Act. The result is that under the Amended Act the ceiling limit for the tenure holder (whose family is not more than 5 members) has been reduced from 40 acres fair quality land to 7. 30 hectares of irrigated land and this limit is to be calculated with reference 8. 6. 1973 in contrast to 3. 1. 1961 under the Principal Act. Section 19 - The Amending Act. 30 hectares of irrigated land and this limit is to be calculated with reference 8. 6. 1973 in contrast to 3. 1. 1961 under the Principal Act. Section 19 - The Amending Act. ( 13 ) THE ceiling limit as well as relevant date under the Principal Act and under the Amended Act is different. Legislature was conscious of the possibility that the proceedings under the Principal Act may be pending on the date of enforcement of the Amending Act and may not have become final. It was for this reason that section 19 of the Amending Act (see Appendix-3) was enacted. The position can be summarised as follows: ?in case the proceeding for determination of surplus land has become final under the Principal Act then after enforcement of the Amending Act surplus land has to be calculated under the Amended Act. ?in case any proceeding under the Principal Act is pending then it has to abate under section 19 of the Amending Act and a fresh notice under section 9 (2) has to be given. ?the surplus land after fresh notice under section 9 (2) would be determined in two stages. First it would be determined under Principal Act as it stood before the Amending Act then it would be determined in accordance with the Amended Act. ( 14 ) IN this case proceedings were pending under the Principal Act on the date of enforcement of the Amending Act. These proceedings are deemed to have been abated under section 19 of the Amending Act. A fresh notice was given to the tenure holder under section 9 (2 ). In this notice initially the surplus land is to be calculated under the Principal Act and then under the Amended Act. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 31. 1. 1977 and the appellate court by its order dated 31. 3. 1978 had calculated the surplus land in accordance with the Principal Act after excluding the land which was subject matter in Shakuntalas case in view of the interim order of this court. By the impugned orders dated 11. 5. 1983 and 17. 3. 1988 the authorities have declared surplus land under the Principal Act after including the land involved in Shankuntalas case. The Prescribed Authority has merely declared specific plots as surplus under the Principal Act by his order dated 23. 6. 1988. By the impugned orders dated 11. 5. 1983 and 17. 3. 1988 the authorities have declared surplus land under the Principal Act after including the land involved in Shankuntalas case. The Prescribed Authority has merely declared specific plots as surplus under the Principal Act by his order dated 23. 6. 1988. This is being done in reference to the date of enforcement of the Principal Act namely 3. 1. 1961. The transfer deeds are subsequent to this date as well date mentioned in section 5 (2) of the Principal Act. They are not covered by section 5 (3) of the Principal Act; they have to be ignored. These transferees have neither any right in the proceedings under the Principal Act nor are entitled to any notice. ( 15 ) IT would be relevant here to refer to the earlier writ petitions filed by the tenure holder and the transferees against the orders dated 31. 1. 1977 and 31. 3. 1978. In these writ petitions only one point (that was technical in nature), was agitated. According to them, a fresh notice under section 9 (1) ought to have been issued and as it was not issued the entire proceeding was illegal. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority was not challenged on merit. It was also not claimed that the transferees were entitled to any opportunity in proceeding under the Principal Act. This is clear from the following statement of fact mentioned in the judgement of the High Court dated 2. 7. 1980: As has been stated above, all the three petitions have been argued before me only on one point of law and even though various other matters have been raised in the three petitions, the same were not canvassed before me. This is also clear from the written arguments, which have been submitted on behalf of both the sides in the said petition of the Mills; such written arguments are on the record. The legal contention raised is that after the enforcement of the aforesaid Amending Act (UP Act No. 18 of 1973) on 8th June, 1973, the Prescribed Authority was bound to issue a fresh notice under section 9 (1) of the Act before he could act in accordance with clause (a) of the Proviso to section 19 (1) of the Amending Act. It is contended that the earlier proceedings which were pending on 8th June, 1973, stood abated and in view of such abatement, there was no survival of the notice, which had been earlier issued under section 9 (as it then stood) and the entire proceedings, including the said notice, in law stood wiped out. Therefore, before the Prescribed Authority could acquire jurisdiction to determine the ceiling area and the surplus land of the mills under the provisions of the Act as they stood before 8th June, 1973 it was incumbent upon the said authority to issue a fresh notice under section 9 (1) of the Act. Admittedly, no such notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the entire proceedings, which resulted in the passing of the aforesaid order dated 31st January, 1977 and thereafter, the aforesaid appellate judgement dated 31st March 1978, should be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 16 ) THE court on the aforesaid contention recorded the following finding: In my view, the sole requirement laid down in section 19 (1) is the issuance of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 9 for the start of fresh proceedings and the clear legislative intention was that no notice under section 9 (1) had to be issued after 8. 6. 1973 in regard to those tenure- holders whose cases were pending on 8. 6. 1973 and which stood abated in terms of section 19 (1) of the Amending Act. ( 17 ) ON the basis of the findings, this court passed following order: Accordingly, the petition of Dhampur sugar Mills Ltd. has to be dismissed. The other two petitions also have to be dismissed because admittedly the petitioners in those petitions have placed reliance on the aforesaid contention which has been convassed in the case of the said Sugar Mills Ltd. Additionally, it may be stated (though it is not really necessary because no submission was made before me apart from the aforesaid contention noticed and dealt with above) that the petitioners in the other two petitions have placed reliance on certain transaction which were alleged to have come into effect after 3. 1. 1961, which was the relevant date for determining the ceiling area and the surplus land under the old provisions. Therefore, such transactions were bound to be ignored as they took place after the said relevant date. 1. 1961, which was the relevant date for determining the ceiling area and the surplus land under the old provisions. Therefore, such transactions were bound to be ignored as they took place after the said relevant date. The said petitioners could not set up any claim on the basis of such transactions. All the three petitions are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (Italics mine ). ( 18 ) THE Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court by their orders dated 11. 5. 1983; 17. 5. 1985 and 23. 6. 1988 have decided the proceeding under the Principal Act. They have not decided the case under the Amended Act; the proceeding under the Amended Act is still pending: notice under the Amended Act has been issued and objections have been filed by the tenure holder. The transferees have neither right in the proceeding under the Principal Act nor are entitled to notice: their transfers are after the relevant date under the Principal Act. The transferees have rights and are entitled to notice only in proceeding under the Amended Act as their transfers are prior to 8. 6. 1973: the date of enforcement of the Amended Act. ( 19 ) THE counsel for the transferees submitted that the transferees had filed objection in the appeal and notice of transfer of appeal to Commissioners court was neither given to them nor they had knowledge of the appellate courts proceeding. According to them, the appellate order dated 17. 3. 1988 is against the principles of natural justice. ( 20 ) I have already held that the transferees are not entitled to notice in proceeding under the Principal Act: the question of their knowledge of transfer of the appeal to the commissioners court or notice of transfer of appeal is academic. The order in proceedings under the Principal Act can not be set aside on the ground that the transferees had no knowledge of the transfer of the appeal or notice of transfer of appeal was not given to them. The appellate court rightly dismissed the objections of the transferees in the proceedings under the Principal Act. ( 21 ) THE counsels for the tenure holder and the transferees neither disputed the enunciation of law while deciding the Point nos. The appellate court rightly dismissed the objections of the transferees in the proceedings under the Principal Act. ( 21 ) THE counsels for the tenure holder and the transferees neither disputed the enunciation of law while deciding the Point nos. 1 and 2, nor could they in view of the legal provisions; but according to them in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, ?proceeding under the Principal Act now can not be taken and proceeding should only be taken under the Amended Act that is to say ceiling limit should be 7. 3 hectares of land and should be calculated with reference to 8. 6. 1973 under the Amended Act only. ?the transferees are entitled to be heard not only in the proceeding under the Amended Act but also under the Principal Act. In substance their contention is that the observations of the Supreme Court are contrary to the legal provisions and I am bound by them. ( 22 ) COUNSEL for the tenure holder placed reliance on the following observations made by Supreme Court in its order dated 1. 12. 1980 in the SLP filed by the tenure holder Assuming for the purpose of argument that Mr. Kacker is right in this contention that it is obligatory after the Amendment Act to issue a fresh general notice under Section 9 (1) we are of the opinion that the consideration as to whether any prejudice has been caused by reason of the non issue of such a notice under section 9 (1) of the Act is not irrelevant. Under section 9 (1) he has already filed his objections and we have no doubt that the matter will now be decided afresh as required by the amendment act after taking the objections of the petitioner into consideration and after having regard to the provisions of the amendment Act, if it has not been already disposed of on merits. The SLP is demised. (Italics mine ). ( 23 ) COUNSEL for the transferees have brought to my notice the following observations of the Supreme Court in its order dated 30. 3. 1984 in the SLP filed by them:"the Special Leave petition is dismissed in view of the statement made by Mr. The SLP is demised. (Italics mine ). ( 23 ) COUNSEL for the transferees have brought to my notice the following observations of the Supreme Court in its order dated 30. 3. 1984 in the SLP filed by them:"the Special Leave petition is dismissed in view of the statement made by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that in the appeal of the Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. which is pending before the District Judge, Bijnor against the order passed declaring the land of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. , as surplus land, the petitioners will be allowed to be impleaded as parties provided they make an application within a period of four weeks from today and they will be at liberty to file their objections against the declaration of land as surplus land and lead such evidence as they may wish in support of their objections. We would direct District Judge, Bijnor to grant the application of the petitioners to be impleaded in the appeal and the petitioners shall be permitted to file their objections and lead evidence in support of their objections and the District Judge, will dispose of the appeal before him on consideration of such further evidence as may be raised by the petitioners and such further arguments as may be advanced by the petitioners. "and also the following observation in the order dated 2. 4. 1984:"the District Judge will decide the objections without being in any manner influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the Judgement. " ( 24 ) IN the earlier writ petitions, the tenure holder and transferees had challenged the orders in proceeding under the Principal Act and had agitated only one ground namely that the notice under section 9 (1) ought to have been issued afresh. No other point was raised. This is clear from the judgement of this court. This question could only be raised by them before the Supreme Court. The observations of the Supreme Court in the order dated 1. 12. 1980 show that this submission of the tenure holder was not accepted, as the court had observed that even if this contention was correct, the question of prejudice was not irrelevant. In other words they held that the question of prejudice was relevant. No prejudice was shown and the SLP was dismissed. 12. 1980 show that this submission of the tenure holder was not accepted, as the court had observed that even if this contention was correct, the question of prejudice was not irrelevant. In other words they held that the question of prejudice was relevant. No prejudice was shown and the SLP was dismissed. This shows that the findings in proceeding under the Principal Act till that stage were not disturbed. ( 25 ) THE tenure holder had been given notice for two things: (I)FOR including the land that was subject matter of dispute in Shakuntalas case as surplus land under the Principal Act. (ii)For determination ceiling limit under the Amended Act as was required to be done in the second stage under Section 19 of the Amending Act. The Supreme Court by its observation meant that the tenure holder may file objection in the proceeding under the Amended Act. These proceedings are to be decided under the amended provisions. The proceedings under the Principal Act were not even challenged on merit before the High Court. The Supreme Court could not have intended that these proceedings should be set at naught without setting aside the orders of the courts below. There is nothing in the observations of the Supreme Court that proceeding under the Principal Act were set aside or now the surplus land can be determined only under the Amended Act. ( 26 ) SIMILAR is the position regarding observations in the order dismissing the SLP of the transferees. The transferees had no right in proceeding under the Principal Act. The question of opportunity under the Principal Act was not even agitated in the earlier writ petition. In this writ petition the transferees never submitted that they were entitled to notice or opportunity in proceeding under the Principal Act under the legal provisions. As a matter of fact it was conceded that they were not entitled to notice in proceeding under the Principal Act but they contended that they are now entitled to notice while calculating surplus land after including the land in Shakuntalas case under the Principal Act in view of the observations of the Supreme Court. ( 27 ) THE principal Act was substantially amended by the Amending Act. The relevant date regarding ceiling limit, as well as provisions of the Principal Act and the Amended Act is different. ( 27 ) THE principal Act was substantially amended by the Amending Act. The relevant date regarding ceiling limit, as well as provisions of the Principal Act and the Amended Act is different. The proceeding under the Amended Act is independent and has to be decided without being influenced by the finding recorded in the proceeding under the Principal Act: the legal provisions, date of enforcement, and ceiling limit are different. The judgement of ceiling authorities and the judgement of the High Court earlier were under the Principal Act. The proceeding under the Amended Act were also being taken in view of section 19 of the Amending Act. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the transferees and observed in the order dated 2. 4. 1984 that the proceeding may be decided without being influenced by the findings recorded by the High Court. The observations of the Supreme Court were meant for the proceeding under the Amended Act, that is in the second stage of determination under section 19 of the Amending Act and not for the proceeding under the Principal Act. The Supreme Court by its observation was merely clarifying the law but has not given any rights to the tenure holder or the transferees that they did not possess under the legal provisions. It was for this reason that the orders under the Principal Act were not set aside. There is nothing in the observations to suggest that they are contrary to the legal provisions: the Supreme Court neither held that the surplus land under the Amended Act only can be determined nor gave rights to the transferees in proceedings under the Principal Act. ( 28 ) EVEN if it is accepted that the Supreme Court had given rights to the transferees in the proceeding under the Principal Act, I would like to clarify that I have heard the transferees on merits. The land which is subject matter of their transfers can not be excluded while calculating surplus land under the Principal Act as their transfer is subsequent to the relevant date under that Act. Even if they had appeared in the appeal they could not have added anything. Principles of natural of justice are not empty formality. The land which is subject matter of their transfers can not be excluded while calculating surplus land under the Principal Act as their transfer is subsequent to the relevant date under that Act. Even if they had appeared in the appeal they could not have added anything. Principles of natural of justice are not empty formality. Counsel for the tenure holder also has neither agitated nor pointed out any mistake in calculating surplus land under the Principal Act (apart from submitting that the proceeding under the Principal Act can not be taken ). There is no illegality in the impugned orders. They can not be set aside. ( 29 ) THE proceeding under the Amended Law is still pending. The appellate court has directed this proceeding to be completed. The transferees have been impleaded. They may also file their objections in the proceeding to be finalised under the Amended Act. These proceeding may be decided in accordance with law. ( 30 ) MY conclusions are as follows: (A)IN case any proceeding for determination of surplus land was pending on the date of enforcement (8th June 1973) of the Amending Act (UP Act no. 18 of 1973) then that proceeding abates in view of section 19 of the Amending Act. In this eventuality, the ceiling proceeding has to be re- determined in two stages: firstly under the Principal Act as it stood before the amendment and secondly, under the Amended Act (ie Principal Act as amended by the amending Act namely UP Act no. 18 of 1973 ). (B)THE Supreme Court never held that now proceeding under the Amended Act only can be undertaken. (C) The Prescribed authority in its order dated 31. 1. 1977 and the appellate authority in its order dated 31. 3. 1978 had calculated the surplus area under the Principal Act after excluding the land involved in Shakuntalas case. The Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 11. 5. 1983 and the appellate court by its order dated 17. 3. 1988 has determined the surplus land in accordance with Principal Act after including the land involved in the Shakuntalas case. This had to be done as Shakuntalas case was dismissed by this court. (D)THE transfers were made in the year 1970-71. These transfers are after the relevant date under the Principal Act and have to ignored in proceeding under the Principal Act. This had to be done as Shakuntalas case was dismissed by this court. (D)THE transfers were made in the year 1970-71. These transfers are after the relevant date under the Principal Act and have to ignored in proceeding under the Principal Act. The transferees also have no right in the proceedings for determination of surplus land under the Principal Act. They only have rights to be heard in the proceeding under the Amended Act. (E)THE observations of the Supreme Court are only to the effect that the transferees will be heard in the proceedings under the Amended Act and these proceedings are to be decided without being influenced by the finding under the Principal Act. These proceedings are still pending and may be decided. (F)THE tenure holder has already filed objection in proceeding under the Amended Act and the transferees may also file their objections in these proceedings. These proceedings may be decided in accordance with the Amended Act. In view of my conclusions, both the writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of writ petition No. 12981 of 1988.