By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06-0/-1982, passed by First Additional District Judge, Nainital, where by ceiling appeal No. 55 of 1980, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed. The petitioners have further challenged the orders dated 1/-06-1980 and 21-0/-1980, passed by Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 2), whereby rectification application was allowed and the petitioners were refused to be impleaded as party in the proceedings under U. P Im position of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P Act No. 1 of 1961 ). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel. 3. Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition are that petitioners are in occu pation of land of plot No. 22/4, situated in Village Mehtaban, Tehsil Bazpur (ear lier part of District Nainital ). Petitioners case is that they were recorded in occu pation over said land since the year 1376 Fasli (calendar year 1969 ). Pro ceedings under U. P Imposition of Ceil ing on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (here inafter referred as U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961), were started by the State against Ranbir Lal Kapoor (respondent No. 3 ). His land spread over in different villages measuring 174 bigha and 12 biswa, was declared surplus in the proceedings. In the proceedings against Shri Ranbir Lal Kapoor, there was mention of plot No. 23/4 of aforesaid village Mehtaban and out of said plot, area measuring 38 bighas 3 biswas, was declared surplus. Copy of the order dated 26-11-1977, by which total area measuring 174 bighas 12 biswas, which included aforesaid 38 bighas 3 biswas, was declared surplus by Prescribed Authority, is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Author ity, vide its order dated 1/-06-1980 (copy of the order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition), rectified the orders dated 22-11-1977 and 26-11-1977, and it was directed that the plot No. 22/4, shall be read instead of plot No. 23/4. Accord ing to the petitioners, this affected the rights of the petitioners and they filed their objections under Section 11 (2) of U. P Act No. 1 of 1961. However, the Prescribed Authority, rejected said objec tions, vide its order dated 21-0/-1980 (copy Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). Accord ing to the petitioners, this affected the rights of the petitioners and they filed their objections under Section 11 (2) of U. P Act No. 1 of 1961. However, the Prescribed Authority, rejected said objec tions, vide its order dated 21-0/-1980 (copy Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). On this the petitioners challenged said rder, passed by the Prescribed Author ity, before the appellate authority i. e. District Judge, Nainital. The First Addi tional District Judge, Nainital-respondent No. 1 (to whom the appeal was trans ferred), after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 06-0/-1982, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. Copy of the impugned order dated 06-0/-1982, is annexed as Annexure A-6 to the writ petition. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority, committed error of law in rejecting the objections and the appeal of the petitioners. It is further al leged that the rectification made is barred by time. 4. This writ petition was filed before Allahabad High Court on 14-10-1982, where it was admitted on said dated and an order was passed to the effect that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question, provided they are not already dispossessed. The writ petition is received by this Court, by transfer under Section 35 of U. P Reor ganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. Perusal of the record, shows that neither respondent No. 3 turned up to contest the writ petition nor any counter affida vit is filed on behalf of the State. 5. It is not disputed between the parties that Village Mehtaban came under U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 w. e. f. 01-0/-1969 i e. 1376 Fasli. It is also not dis puted between the parties that proceed ings under U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were initiated against respondent No. 3 Ranbir Lal Kapoor, who owned land in different villages. From the orders under chal lenge, it is also clear that notices were issued under said Act in respect of land including plot No. 23/4 of Village Mehtaban. !t is also not in dispute that total land measuring 174 bigha and 12 biswa, was declared surplus in the proceedings against Ranbir Lal Kapoor (respondent No. 3), which included 38 bigha 3 biswa land of plot No. 23/4. !t is also not in dispute that total land measuring 174 bigha and 12 biswa, was declared surplus in the proceedings against Ranbir Lal Kapoor (respondent No. 3), which included 38 bigha 3 biswa land of plot No. 23/4. The impugned order dated 1/-06-1980 (copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ peti tion), shows that Prescribed Authority, passed an order dated 1/-06-1980, rec tifying his order dated 26-11-1977 that plot No. 23/4 of Village Mahtaban, shall be read as plot No. 22/4. On this, peti tioners, filed their objections (copy of which is Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) but the same were dismissed by the Pre scribed Authority vide order dated 21-0/-1980, holding that petitioners who are recorded as cultivators of Class 9 in the revenue record, have no right to be impleaded in the proceedings. Said or der is affirmed in the appeal by the appellate authority. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, at tention of this Court is drawn to the various papers, which are copies of the revenue record, annexed with the sup plementary affidavit dated 22-04-2007. These documents corroborate the fact that the petitioners were recorded culti vators of Class 9 over plot No. 22/4 of Village Mehtaban. Though the tenure holder was Ranbir Lal Kapoor of said village along with some others, the ques tion before this Court is whether the petitioners have a right to be heard in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority or not. 7. In view of principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Dilbag Singh Vs. State of U. P. 1978, ALJ, Pg. 717, the objections of such cultivators should be heard on merits by the Prescribed Authority under Section 11 (2) of U. P Act No. 1 of 1961. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has given similar view also in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Civil Judge 1969aljpg. 556: AIR 1970 AH 130 (Full Bench ). 8. There is no doubt that cut-off date in the proceedings of ceiling in question was 08-06-1973, where after if the transfers are made, the same are illegal. But in the present case, the pe titioners have not based their claim through Ranbir Lal Kapoor. Civil Judge 1969aljpg. 556: AIR 1970 AH 130 (Full Bench ). 8. There is no doubt that cut-off date in the proceedings of ceiling in question was 08-06-1973, where after if the transfers are made, the same are illegal. But in the present case, the pe titioners have not based their claim through Ranbir Lal Kapoor. The entries made in the khatauni show that the petitioners were in occupation as culti vators without title when the ceiling pro ceedings under aforesaid Act, were ini tiated. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners had no right to be heard. Not only this, the most sig nificant document is Annexure-6 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, which is copy of khatauni of the year 1397 Fasli to 1402 Fasli (Calendar year 1990 to 1995), which shows that the petition ers have been declared bhumidhar of plot No. 22/4, vide judgment and order dated 30-10- 1986. passed in zamindari abolition appeal No. 661/102 of 1982-83 by Additional Commissioner, Kumaun (Judicial), Nainital. 9. In the circumstances, in view of principle of law laid down in aforemen tioned cases, the Prescribed Authority, has erred in law in not hearing the ob jections of the petitioners under Section 11 (2) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961. 10. Therefore, the writ petition de serves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that impugned order dated 06-0/-1982, passed by re spondent No. 1, and order dated 21-0/-1980, passed by Prescribed Authority, are quashed. The order dated 1/-06-1980, passed by the Prescribed Author ity, rectifying plot No. 23/4 as plot No. 22/4 (Village Mehtaban) shall be subject to the final decision on merits on the objections of the petitioners, who were recorded as cultivators of Class 9 on the date of ceiling and, later declared bhumidhar in respect of said plot. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the ob jections of present petitioners on merits. No order as to costs. .