( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. ( 2 ) EARLIER also the matter had come up to this court in the form of Writ Petition No. 2336 of 1977 - Ram Raja vs. District Judge, Banda and others. The said writ petition was allowed on 29. 11. 1978. Copy of the said judgment has been supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point which was argued in that writ petition was that one of the petitioners sons was born on 2. 1. 1974 meaning thereby that on the crucial date i. e. 8. 6. 1973 he was in the womb of his mother hence he must be treated to be family member on 8. 6. 1973. The said point was accepted and matter was remanded for re-calculation of ceiling area/surplus land held by the petitioner. Thereafter matter was decided by the Prescribed authority/sub Divisional Officer, Banda on 25. 11. 1982 and it was held that petitioner did not possess any surplus land. ( 3 ) THE said order was passed in case no. 23 /196. Copy of the said order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the said order it is mentioned that in the family settlement dated 8. 5. 1969 petitioner got 103 bighas and odd land, however, in the amended notice on the basis of which proceedings were initiated it was shown that he possessed only 56 bighas and odd land. In the ultimate paragraph of the said judgment Prescribed authority held that on the basis of the notice which was given, petitioner did not possess any surplus land hence notice was discharged. ( 4 ) IN the last sentence it was mentioned that in case petitioner possessed more land than permissible to be held under the ceiling Act then fresh proceedings must be initiated. In the said order it was also mentioned that on the basis of number of family members on the crucial date petitioner was entitled to retain 74 bighas and odd agricultural land. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER a fresh notice was given to the tenure holder mentioning therein that he possessed 103 and odd bighas of land. Against the said notice preliminary objection was filed by the petitioner to the effect that fresh notice could not be given. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER a fresh notice was given to the tenure holder mentioning therein that he possessed 103 and odd bighas of land. Against the said notice preliminary objection was filed by the petitioner to the effect that fresh notice could not be given. The preliminary objection was turned down by the Prescribed authority/a. S. D. O. , Babero District Banda through order dated 28. 5. 1984. Against the said order petitioner filed revenue appeal no. 68 of 1984. The said appeal was dismissed by District Judge, Banda/appellate Court on 30. 10. 1984 hence this writ petition. ( 6 ) BOTH the courts below held that fresh notice could be treated to be under Section 29/30 of the Ceiling Act. According to the said Sections if subsequently tenure holder acquires some more property then fresh ceiling proceedings may be initiated. ( 7 ) IN para-7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the effect of family settlement was carried out in the revenue records in the year 1982 hence fresh notice was quite legal. From perusal of para-10 of the counter affidavit it appears that in consequence of the aforesaid family settlement dated 8. 5. 1969 some suit was also filed which was decreed and thereafter necessary mutation was made in the revenue records. ( 8 ) IN my opinion if on the basis of family partition revenue records were corrected in 1982 then Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act were squarely applicable. The earlier writ petition was directed against order of District Judge, Banda dated 12. 3. 1977 passed in Revenue appeal no. 738 of 1976 Ram Raja vs. State, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below: "in the next place he contends that the learned Prescribed Authority was in error in ignoring the oral family settlement dated 8. 5. 1969 which was reduced into writing on 8. 5. 1969. He also points out that on the basis of this family settlement a partition suit in the Revenue court was filed and was decreed on 26. 5. 1970. He also points out that in the first notice issued to the appellant the family settlement in question was given effect to and the holding of the appellant was shown in accordance with family settlement. 5. 1970. He also points out that in the first notice issued to the appellant the family settlement in question was given effect to and the holding of the appellant was shown in accordance with family settlement. But without any reason the family settlement was ignored in the second notice issued under section 10 (2) of the Act. " ( 9 ) IN the operative portion it was mentioned as follows: "the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order passed by the learned Prescribed authority are quashed. The learned Prescribed authority will re-determine surplus area and surplus plots keeping in view the observations made above. In particular, he will treat the family settlement reduced to writing on 8. 5. 1969 and the partition decree passed on its basis as genuine. . . . . . . . " ( 10 ) AS is clear from the above it was the own case of the petitioner that family settlement should be honoured hence he cannot complaint if notice was issued in accordance with the said family settlement. Moreover in the order of the Prescribed authority dated 25. 11. 1982 liberty was granted for initiating fresh proceedings hence no fault can be found with fresh proceedings. One thing is not clear. If in the earlier notice land possessed by the petitioner was shown to be 56 bighas and odd and in family settlement he had been allotted 103 bighas and odd land then why he complained that notice was not in accordance with family partition. May be after family settlement dated 8. 5. 1969 and the decree passed on the basis thereof some fresh settlement took place and the earlier settlement was re-adjusted. However, these points/questions do not affect the result of this writ petition. In para-7 of the counter affidavit it was stated that effect of some family settlement was carried out in revenue records in the year 1982. On this basis fresh proceedings could very well be initiated under Section 29/30 of the Ceiling Act. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. .