JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the ?Act, 1960?) were initiated against one Sukhdeo, the father of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 has since expired. The proceedings culminated in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.7.1976 whereunder it was held that the recorded tenure holder had 5 bigha 2 biswa and 11 biswansi of the land as surplus. 2. Not being satisfied, Suhkdeo filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960. This appeal was dismissed under an order of the Appellate Authority dated 22.12.1976. There is nothing on record to establish as to whether Suhkdeo challenged the order of the ceiling authorities before the High Court or not. In terms of Section 13, the order of the Appellate Authority became final. After more than 09 years of the proceedings against Suhkdeo having become final, the present petitioners who claim to be the sons and grand-sons of Sukhdeo made an application stating for the first time that the entire property in the hands of Sukhdeo was Ancestral, Seer and Khudkasht and since Sumer Prasad and Sudama Prasad were born prior to the abolition of the zamindari, they had a share in the property which could not clubbed. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 20.2.1986. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 7.10.1987. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed writ petition No. 1045 of 1988. The writ petition was allowed under the order dated 11.5.1990 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the application of the petitioners afresh after affording an opportunity to file a Section 5 application and further to examine as to whether in the facts of the case, application under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 was legally maintainable or not and thereafter if need be to examine the case on merits. 3. On remand the Appellate Authority has reconsidered the matter afresh and by means of the impugned order dated 25.6.1991 has rejected the appeal made by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has recorded a categorical finding that Section 11(2) has no application in the facts of the case. 4. 3. On remand the Appellate Authority has reconsidered the matter afresh and by means of the impugned order dated 25.6.1991 has rejected the appeal made by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has recorded a categorical finding that Section 11(2) has no application in the facts of the case. 4. It is not necessary for the Court to enter into the other findings recorded inasmuch as the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the finding recorded that the application under Section 11(2) itself was not maintainable. With the reasons recorded in the appellate order, this Court is in agreement. It may be stated that the Appellate Court has found that before the Prescribed Authority, in the proceedings initiated against Sukhdeo, a specific issue was framed as to whether the land in question was ancestral, seer and khudkasht. The issue was answered against the recorded tenure holder Sukhdeo. In view of the aforesaid it has been held that the application made by the sons and the grand-sons for re-opening of the finding so recorded after rejection of the objection taken in that regard by the recorded tenure holder is legally not permissible. An application under Section 11(2) cannot be the basis for review of the order passed by the Ceiling Authority which has become final. This Court may record that once it was conclusively found up to the appellate stage that the entire holding at the hands of Sukhdeo was not ancestral, seer and khudkasht, the finding have become final, cannot be re-opened after 9 years. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gajendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AWC 347, Raghuvansh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1983 ALL LJ 873 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Baldeo Singh v. State of U.P., All CJ 452. So far as the judgment in the case of Gajendra Pratap Singh (Supra), it has been held that objections of the persons that their land could not be included as the holding of the Uncle filed under Section 11(2) is required to be heard on merits. So far as the judgment in the case of Gajendra Pratap Singh (Supra), it has been held that objections of the persons that their land could not be included as the holding of the Uncle filed under Section 11(2) is required to be heard on merits. Similarly in the case of Raghuvansh Singh and others (supra) it has been held that if a notice has not been issued to the co-sharer under Rule 8, the entire proceedings shall be vitiated. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition so laid down. However, in the facts of the case the judgments have no application inasmuch as it has been found that objection raised by the father of the petitioners in response to the notice under Section 10(2) that the land was ancestral, seer and khudkasht was rejected by an speaking order and the finding in that regard stood affirmed up to the appellate stage. Petitioners who are successors in interest are equally bound by the findings so recorded. Therefore, the order of the authorities holding that provisions of Section 11(2) are not attracted is legally justified. 6. The Full Bench in the case of Baldeo Singh is concerned, paragraph 23 which has been specifically relied upon provides that an order of the Tribunal which effects the rights of a party if passed without opportunity of hearing to him is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The legal proposition is well settled. However the issue as to whether the property was ancestral, seer and khudkasht stood conclusively decided against the father of the petitioner in proceedings nearly 9 years before filing of the application by the present petitioners. 7. I am of the opinion that the issue as to whether the property in the hands of the father was ancestral, seer and khudkasht having been decided finally, cannot be permitted to be re-opened on the asking of the sons and grand-sons of the tenure holder on an application being filed under Section 11(2) on the plea they had a share in the same, therefore, they are entitled to a notice under Rule 8. Such issues are not required to be adjudicated again and again, first at the insistence of the father and thereafter on the asking of the sons and the grand-sons in the same proceedings. 8. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. —————