JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioners of both the writ petitions are assailing the validity of the order dated 31.12.1996 passed by Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and as affirmed in Appeal by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur on 15.12.1998. 2. Brief fact as are reflected from the pleadings as set out are that proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were undertaken by issuing notice to Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Awadhesh Saran R/o Village Mohammadpur, Tappa Biraicha Pargana Haveli Tehsil Sadar District Maharajganj on 7.3.1981 wherein 18.20 acres of land was proposed to be left out and rest of the land 43.85 acres was proposed to be declared surplus. On 30.4.1988 proposed determination was finalised by the Prescribed Authority, thereafter an application was moved for setting aside said order by Girishpati Tripathi, Rakeshpati Tripathi and others and second application was moved by Saraswati Devi herself. Both the restoration applications were accepted and proceedings in question were restored and ex-parte order dated 30.4.1988 was set aside and thereafter on 31.12.1996 the matter was reheard and earlier order was maintained declaring 43.85 acres of land as surplus. Against the said order separate appeal in question had been preferred. Said appeal in question has been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State-respondents and therein proceedings undertaken have been sought to be justified. 4. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9616 of 1999 an application has also been moved on behalf of subsequent allottee Sahati and others. 5. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged in both the writ petitions, both the writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. 6. 4. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9616 of 1999 an application has also been moved on behalf of subsequent allottee Sahati and others. 5. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged in both the writ petitions, both the writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. 6. Sri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case proceedings in question is vitiated as entire proceedings have proceeded on the presumption that entire holding belonged to Smt. Saraswati Devi whereas there were other tenure holders whose names were duly recorded as such claim of each and every recorded tenure holder also ought to have been examined within the scope and ambit of the provisions as contained under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and determination ought to have been done accordingly, and recorded tenure holders have not been issued notices and their claim has not been genuinely considered, and has been non-suited on surmises and conjectures as such order in question are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that cogent reasons have been given by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority, as such orders in question are not liable to be interfered with and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Arguments to the similar effect has been advanced by Sri R.K. Awasthi, Advocate who has entered appearance on behalf of Sahati and others. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging in the present case is that proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 had been initiated against Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Sri Awadesh Saran by means of notice dated 7.3.1981 and in the said proceedings ceiling area 18.20 acres of land was left out in her favour and 43.85 acres of land was declared surplus. In the said proceedings Smt. Saraswati has failed to enter appearance, as such ex parte order on 30.4.1998 was passed declaring 43.85 acres of land as surplus. After said order has been passed an application for restoration was moved by Girishpati Tripathi, Rajeshpati Tripathi and Harishpati Tripathi and also by Smt. Saraswati Devi and thereafter ex parte order was recalled on 25.8.1998. After said order has been passed an application for restoration was moved by Girishpati Tripathi, Rajeshpati Tripathi and Harishpati Tripathi and also by Smt. Saraswati Devi and thereafter ex parte order was recalled on 25.8.1998. Smt. Saraswati Devi filed her objection on 16.7.1998 mentioning therein that she has no surplus land and stand has also been taken by her and in respect of sale deed being executed by her, and in consolidation operation her holding has been reduced. Objection has also been filed by Girishpati and others on 12.5.1989 contending that Smt. Saraswati Devi was not exclusive bhumidhar on the basis of decree of Civil Court and they are owner of land and in possession. Thereafter order dated 31.8.1992 was passed declaring 43.85 acres of land as surplus and again restoration application was filed by Girishpati and other on 16.11.1992 and order was set aside and matter was again taken up afresh. In between Smt. Saraswati Devi died and in place of Smt. Saraswati Devi, Girishpati, Harishpati and Rajeshpati S/o of Bhoop Narayan and Deep Narayanpati S/o Rudra Narayanpati and Dev Narayanpati and Sureshpati S/o Deveshpati and Mst. Chandra Joyota. The Prescribed Authority thereafter has proceeded to consider the matter and has contended that documents produced by the petitioner in respect of his claim is not acceptable as it is Xerox copy and in respect of sale deed, as is after 24.1.1971, same has been held to be unsustainable. This order has also been affirmed in Appeal. Fact of the matter is that claim of petitioners has not at all been considered on merit and it has been sought to be non-suited on the ground that evidence which has been sought to be produced by the petitioner same was by way of Xerox copy. Categorical stand of the petitioner has been that there were consolidation proceedings and original documents has been submitted in the said consolidation proceedings. In paragraph-12 of writ petition categorical stand has been taken that entire original evidence had been submitted in consolidation proceeding, qua the same request was made to summon the said record, which was not accepted then photostat copies of judgment and other evidence was submitted by petitioners. Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that copy of original decree was not filed and then after considering evidence order has been passed. Precise statement has not been disputed. Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that copy of original decree was not filed and then after considering evidence order has been passed. Precise statement has not been disputed. Claim of the petitioners has not been considered on the premises that evidence produced were Xerox copy. Once Xerox copy were being produced then Prescribed Authority could have afforded opportunity to the petitioner to prove aforesaid documents in case they were not public documents, as public documents do not require formal proof, and in case there was any element of ingenuity in such public documents then petitioners could have been asked to file certified copy of the same. In the present case order dated 31.12.1996 passed by Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and as affirmed in Appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur on 15.12.1998 cannot be subscribed in law. 10. Consequently order dated 31.12.1996 passed by Prescribed Authority and order dated 15.12.1996 passed in Appeal by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur qua the petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioners shall file documents within next four weeks from the date of delivery of judgment before Prescribed Authority and thereafter preferably within next three months Prescribed Authority shall take decision on the basis of evidence available on record strictly as per the provisions as contained under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder as more than twenty six years period has elapsed since the commencement of proceedings. 11. For the reason stated above, both writ petitions are allowed and disposed of. ————