Arun Tandon, J.:- Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1960) were initiated against the recorded tenure holder (Mohar Singh) culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.3.1980 whereunder it was held that the petitioner had 4.45 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Not being satisfied the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. The appeal was decided under an order dated 30.9.1980. Operative portion of the order is being quoted here in below : "The appeal is hereby partly allowed and the case is being sent back to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that he will recalculate the ceiling and surplus area applicable to the tenure holder in the light of the finding or observation made above in the body of this judgment. He need not hold an enquiry into the matter. His job will be only to work oat the surplus area if any in the light of the finding of this Court. None of the parties shall be entitled to hearing him but it shall be open to the Prescribed Authority to take their help if necessary in calcuation I make no order as to cost. Let the matter be sent back to the Prescribed Authority for expeditious disposal of the matter according to law." 2. This order was permitted to become final by the petitioner. On remand the Prescribed Authority has carried out the directions issued by the appellate court and re-calculated the ceiling limits of the writ petitioners vide order dated 30.4.1986. It has been calculated that the petitioner had 1.89 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Against this calculation, petitioner filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960 being Appeal No. 26/2/92/246 of 1985-86. The appeal has been dismissed under the order dated 28.6.1989. Hence this petition. 3. The appellate authority has held that under the order of remand of the appellate court dated 30.4.1986, only re-calculation of the ceiling limits in light of various observations made was required to be done. The tenure holder was not be heard, meaning thereby only calculation was to be done and no other ground could be permitted to be raised before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority was permitted the help, if necessary, for the purposes of calculation only. The tenure holder was not be heard, meaning thereby only calculation was to be done and no other ground could be permitted to be raised before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority was permitted the help, if necessary, for the purposes of calculation only. Admittedly the remand order was not subjected to any further challenge. 4. I am of the considered opinion that the orders impugned are as per the law. It is not permissible to the petitioner to raise any other issue except for the purposes of pointing out that the calculation done by the Prescribed Authority is factually incorrect. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasib u. District Judge, Jalaun at Oral, Writ Petition No. 4926 of 1979, for the purposes of contending that if the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority under his original order dated 31.3.1980 on merits were without jurisdiction, then such a plea could be raised before the Prescribed Authority after the matter was being considered under the remand order dated 30.9.1980. The contention has been so raised only to be rejected. 6. Appeal against an order made under Section 11 (2) or Section 12 of the Act, 1960 is provided under Section 13. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides that the decision on appeal shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any Court of law. Section 13 (2) reads as follows : "13. Appeals.-(1) ......... (2) The Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any Court of law." 7. From the language of the Statute, it is apparently clear that finality is attached to an order of the appellate authority passed under Section 13 (2). The issues decided against the tenure holder under the order of remand passed by the appellate authority dated 30.9.1980 could not be re-opened by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority could only carry out the directions issued under the appellate order of calculating the surplus area, in light of the finding of the appellate court. The language of the order of the appellate authority dated 30.9.1980, quoted above does not admit of any 'other view. The Prescribed Authority could only carry out the directions issued under the appellate order of calculating the surplus area, in light of the finding of the appellate court. The language of the order of the appellate authority dated 30.9.1980, quoted above does not admit of any 'other view. The allegation that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in his order dated 31.3.1980 were without jurisdiction is misconceived and not supported by any reasons. This Court, therefore, holds that the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. It is neither desirable nor permissible to disturb the judgment and decree which has attained finality nor the correctness of a judicial order/statutory order which have attained finality is to be re-examined in a writ jurisdiction. (Ref. Naresh Shridhar Mirqjkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 01 and Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. V. J. Cornelius etc., AIR 1981 SC 1099 ). 8. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the Prescribed Authority has rightly re-calculated the surplus area strictly in terms of the order of remand dated 30.9.1980. No other issue could be canvassed nor considered once the order dated 30.9.1980 was permitted to become final. Writ petition is dismissed.