Arun Tandon,J.: - This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority dated 5.2.1990 passed in Appeal No. 19/1988-89 filed under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: (i) Proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated against the recorded tenure holder namely Uttam Singh resulting in an order dated 18.12.1974 wherein it was held that Uttam Singh had 82.82 acres of irrigated land as surplus. (ii) Not being satisfied Uttam Singh filed an appeal which was partly allowed and his ceiling limits were reduced to 77.38 acres. Uttam Singh filed writ petition 2199/1977 against the orders aforesaid which was dismissed thereafter two Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court which were dismissed on 8.10.1987 and the order of the Appellate Authority declaring 70.38 acres of irrigated land as surplus was maintained. (iii) At this stage of the proceedings the present petitioner made an application under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, stating therein that 20 bighas of land of plot no. 33/2 village Dibdiba, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur was transferred by way of sale deed by Uttam Singh in favour of the petitioner's sister Smt. Joginder Kaur on 24.7.1959, who expired on 2.12.1976, the property has been inherited by the petitioner being her real sister the only surviving heir. Such transferred land could not be included in the holding of Uttam Singh. It was stated that earlier proceedings initiated against Uttam Singh under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act culminating in an order dated 18/28.12.1974 in Case No. 174/1974 where taken without notice to the petitioner. The said plot including the 20 bighas of land covered by the sale deed be excluded from the holding of Uttam Singh. The application so filed by the present petitioner was granted by the Collector vide order dated 31.5.1988 and it was directed that 20 bighas of land of plot no. 33/2 covered by sale deed dated 24.7.1959 be excluded and the holding of Uttam Singh and his ceiling limits be detained afresh. This order was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by means of App19/1988-89, the appeal has been allowed. Hence this petition. 33/2 covered by sale deed dated 24.7.1959 be excluded and the holding of Uttam Singh and his ceiling limits be detained afresh. This order was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by means of App19/1988-89, the appeal has been allowed. Hence this petition. (iv) On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Appellate Court has misdirected itself in not considering the impact of the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority passed in Ceiling Case No. 174/1974 decided on 28.12.1974, wherein it was held that the area of 20 bighas of plot no. 33/2 subject matter of sale deed dated 24.7.1959 could not be treated as land holding of Uttam Singh. Therefore, in the subsequent proceedings also such land covered by sale deed executed on 24.7.1959 could not be treated to be the holding of Uttam Singh. In any view of the matter, petitioner was entitled to a notice before inclusion of the said land in the holding of Uttam Singh. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and have examined the records. 4. The Appellate Authority under the impugned order has allowed the appeal on two grounds. (a) the application under Section 11(2) was filed after nearly 11 years of the order determining the ceiling limits of Uttam Singh for the second time having become final and (b) the petitioner/applicant could not satisfy that she has legally entitled inherit the property of Smt. Joginder Kaur. 5. I am of the considered opinion that the conclusions so drawn by the Appellate Court in the facts of this case does not appear to be justified. 6. There was no pleading on behalf of the State for disputing the plea that the applicant received information of the ceiling proceedings taken against Uttam Singh only in the year 1974 though one Harbhajan Singh, nor any facts have been noticed. On the basis whereof it could be said that the petitioner had notice of the proceeding initiated against Uttam Singh specifically in the circumstances when it was not the case of the State that Smt. Joginder Kaur or the present petitioner were related to Uttam Singh. The impact of the order passed in earlier ceiling proceedings initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act against Uttam Singh for the first time being Case No. 174/1974 have also not been considered. The impact of the order passed in earlier ceiling proceedings initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act against Uttam Singh for the first time being Case No. 174/1974 have also not been considered. Therefore, the first ground mentioned for allowing the appeal of the stay is legally not justified. 7. The other ground mentioned for allowing the appeal is that the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how she was the legal heir entitled to succeed to the properties of Smt. Joginder Kaur. 8. This Court may only refer to paragraph 5 of the application filed under section 11(2) by the present petitioner. In the application it was specifically stated that Smt. Joginder Kaur was the real sister of the petitioner and that Smt. Joginder Kaur expired on 2.12.1976 except for the petitioner there was no other person entitled to inherit her property. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon Section 174 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 for contending that the sister is also included in the category of legal heirs entitled to inherit the property of a bhumidhar, when no other legal heir mentioned in the list under Section 174 above the sister was serving. 10. The issue as to whether in the facts of the case sister could succeed to the holding of Smt. Joinder Kaur. The appellate authority was under legal obligation to consider the impact of Section 174 of the U.P. Z.A & L.R Act in the matter of succession to the property of Smt. Joginder Kaur and the right claim in that regard by the petitioner. 11. Further the Appellate Authority should have also examined as to whether in the proceedings initiated before the Writ Court being Writ Petition No. 2199/1977 and in the two Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court which were finally decided on 8.10.1987, Smt. Joginder Kaur or her legal heirs were a party or not. The aforesaid issue is relevant for adjudicating as to whether Smt. Joginder Kaur or her legal heirs were aware of the proceedings taken against Uttam Singh resulting in the order dated 15.1.1977 and the appellate order dated 26.3.1977. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The orders of Appellate Authority is set aside. The aforesaid issue is relevant for adjudicating as to whether Smt. Joginder Kaur or her legal heirs were aware of the proceedings taken against Uttam Singh resulting in the order dated 15.1.1977 and the appellate order dated 26.3.1977. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The orders of Appellate Authority is set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law afresh and record it findings on the following issues amongst them. (a) Whether the petitioner had a right to inherit the properties of Smt. Joginder Kaur and whether from the material brought on record by means of application under Section 11(2). Such right was established in the light of Section 174 of the U.P. Z.A & L.R Act. (b) Whether in proceedings initiated against Uttam Sigh at any point of time, Smt. Joginder Kaur or her legal heirs participated or even otherwise party to the proceedings before the ceiling authorities or before the High Court or before the Supreme Court and whether there was substance in the allegation that petitioner could observe knowledge of the ceiling proceedings taken against Uttam Singh only or not. 13. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within six months from the date a certified copy of this order filed before the authority concerned.