JUDGMENT By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 20-1-1992 and 26.6.1989 passed by respondent No.2, Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut and respondent No.3 Prescribed Authority Haridwar, respectively. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, according to petitioners, are that Kishan Singh father of petitioner Sitab Singh inherited the holding from Smt. Mari and petitioner has equal share in ancestral property. No notice was issued to the petitioner and the ceiling proceeding took place only against Kishan Singh, father of petitioner late Sitab Singh. The petitioner Sitab Singh filed application U/S 11 (2) of the U.P. Imposition Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), Annexure No.2 before the Prescribed Authority to set aside the order dated 15.1.76 passed by Prescribed Authority, stating that he has a share in the said holding and the ceiling area has been wrongly determined. It is further alleged in the petition that admittedly no notice has been issued to the petitioner which is mandatory under Rule-8 of U.P.lmposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) and as such the petitioner cannot be determined from his holding otherwise than in accordance with law as the petitioner is protected by second proviso to Article 31-A(2) of the Constitution of India. The restoration/recall application filed by petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by impugned order dated 26.6.1989. The petitioner Sitab Singh preferred appeal before Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division Meerut which too was numbered as appeal No.1/1989, which was dismissed by appellate authority vide order dated 20.1.1992. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the appellate authority has wrongly held that the restoration/ recall application of petitioner is belated and the delay from 28.10.88 to 3.11.1988 has not been explained whereas the petitioner had explained the delay by filing affidavit which remained uncontroverted. The petitioner had raised objection before the Prescribed Authority that he has equal share in the holding in dispute and notice U/S 8 of ‘the Rules’ was necessary. However, the Prescribed Authority has rejected the restoration/recall application on the ground that the case has finally been disposed of and now the plea cannot be taken that the petitioner had no knowledge of that proceeding. However, the Prescribed Authority has rejected the restoration/recall application on the ground that the case has finally been disposed of and now the plea cannot be taken that the petitioner had no knowledge of that proceeding. The stand taken by Prescribed Authority is erroneous and in absence of notice to petitioner entire proceedings for declaring surplus land were vitiated. 3. The respondent State filed counter affidavit and it is alleged in the counter affidavit that U/S 10(2) of ‘the Act’ notice was issued to Kishan Singh in case No.83 of 1975, which was served upon Kishan Singh on 21.9.75. The objection was filed by Kishan Singh on 4.10.1975 and it was alleged in the objection that the land is his holding and his family is Joint Hindu Family. The tenure holder had got examined Tilak Ram and Bhim Singh and the Prescribed Authority after considering all the facts of the case vide order dated 15.1.1976, declared 15-3-13 Bigha irrigated land as surplus land. Against that order appeal No. 52/76 was filed by the tenure holder and the appeal was dismissed by Civil Judge Roorkee vide order dated 21.6.76. Thereafter the State Government got possession over the surplus land on 27.9.1976 and the land has been allotted to landless labourers and the objection raised by Sitab Singh son of Kishan Singh after about twelve years is not tenable. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that the case has been decided on 21.6.1976 and the three members of Joint Hindu Family have been given benefit of six hectare land and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has contended that petitioner Sitab Singh being the son of undivided Hindu Family of Kishan Singh against whom ceiling proceedings were initiated regarding the land holding should have been issued notice U/R-8 of ‘the Rules’ and in absence of any such notice to the son the entire proceedings for declaring surplus land are vitiated. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Raghuvansh Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 1983 ALL. L.J. 873 and the case of Sheo Nath Singh and others Versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 1981 ALL.L.J. 1146. 6. I have gone through the above cited judgments. 7. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Raghuvansh Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 1983 ALL. L.J. 873 and the case of Sheo Nath Singh and others Versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 1981 ALL.L.J. 1146. 6. I have gone through the above cited judgments. 7. It is to be mentioned here that it is admitted case of both the parties that proceeding of ceiling case No. 83 of 1975 were initiated against Kishan Singh father of Sitab Singh petitioner and in his objection Kishan Singh had raised the plea that the land holding is his own holding and he has undivided Hindu Family, but no notice U/R 8 of ‘the Rules’ was issued to Sitab Singh, son of Kishan Singh. Rule-8 of ‘the Rules’ contemplates service of separate notice on all co-sharers who may not have been recorded and where the assertion of the father is that his sons are co-sharers along with him then the necessity of issuing notice to the sons under Rule-8 of ‘the Rules’ is mandatory and in the absence of any such notice to the sons the entire proceedings for, declaring surplus land are vitiated. 8. In the instant case Kishan Singh father of petitioner Sitab Singh had raised specific plea in his objection that the land holding is his own holding and he has undivided Hindu Family, meaning thereby that the members of his family are having share in the land holding. Further, the petitioner Sitab Singh had filed application U/S 11 (2) of ‘the Act’ to set aside the order passed U/S 11 (1) of the Act against Kishan Singh, father of petitioner, whereby the land was declared surplus, pleading therein that the proceedings are bad in law as no notice U/R 8 of ‘the Rules’ had been issued to him, but the Prescribed Authority had rejected the restoration/recall application on the ground that the case had been decided about twelve years ago and he could have knowledge of that proceeding. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal of petitioner Sitab Singh on the ground that the tenure holder had taken the plea in the earlier proceeding also that part of the holding is Sir and Khudkast land. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal of petitioner Sitab Singh on the ground that the tenure holder had taken the plea in the earlier proceeding also that part of the holding is Sir and Khudkast land. However there was no record to show that the land holding was inherited by Kishan Singh from his ancestors, rather earlier the land was entered in the name of Smt. Mari Devi grandmother of tenure holder. It was also observed by appellate authority that statements of Tilak Ram and Nigana Singh real brothers of Sitab Sigh, were recorded before the Prescribed Authority and it cannot be presumed that there was no knowledge of the proceeding to Sitab Singh. The appellate authority also observed that no satisfactory explanation has come forward from the side of Sitab Singh to file the restoration application with delay. 9. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority have not considered the petitioners case on merit as the objection of petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not filed objection within time inspite of having knowledge of the proceedings taken against Kishan Singh. It is manifest that proceedings taken against Kishan Singh could not bind the petitioner, if he had share in the land holding in dispute and in that event he was entitled to separate notice as contemplated by Rule-8 of ‘the Rules’. 10. The facts of the case at hand and the case of Raghuvansh Singh and others versus state of U.P. and others, reported in 1983 ALL. L.J. 873, cited above, are almost similar. The Allahabad High Court in the above cited case relying on the ratio of Full Bench Judgment in the case of Shantanu Kumar’s case reported in 1979 A.L.J. 1174, as held as under- “The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have not considered the petitioners’ case on merits as their objection was rejected on the ground that they had not filed objection within time in spite of having knowledge of the proceedings taken against Munshi Singh. It is manifest that proceedings taken against Munshi Singh Court not bind the petitioners, if they had share in the plots in dispute and they had acquired tenure-holders right as in that event they were entitled to separate notice as contemplated by R.8. It is manifest that proceedings taken against Munshi Singh Court not bind the petitioners, if they had share in the plots in dispute and they had acquired tenure-holders right as in that event they were entitled to separate notice as contemplated by R.8. The Appellate Authority had first considered the case of Munshi Singh and rejected the petitioners’ case and obsetved as follows:- ‘As regards his sons, they are all grown up persons and it cannot be believed that they had no knowledge of these proceedings. More so, it was the case of Munshi Singh that they are all co sharers and therefore no notice under section 8 could be given to sons and this case is not applicable to this case.’ The above observation of the learned Judge is entirely against the principles of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shantanu Kumar’s case”( 1979 All L 1174). Rule 8 contemplates service of notice on co-sharers who may not have been recorded. Munshi Singh’s assertion was that the petitioners were co sharers; then in view of the Full Bench decisions of this Court the necessity of issuing notice to them under R. 8 was mandatory and in the absence of any such notice to them the entire proceedings for declaring surplus land would be vitiated. The Appellate Authority committed serious error in holding that under R. 8 no notice was necessary to be given to the petitioners.” 11. The observation of Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is entirely against the principles of law laid down by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Shantanu Kumar’s case (1979 All L.J. 1174). Rule-8 contemplates service of notice on co- sharers who may not have been recorded. Kishan Singh’s assertion was that the land in dispute is ancestral land and he has undivided Hindu Family and hence notice under Rule-8 was necessary to petitioner Sitab Singh son of Kishan Singh. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have committed a manifest error in holding that Sitab Singh being family members of Kishan Singh had knowledge of the proceedings commenced against Kishan Singh and no notice was necessary U/R-8 to the petitioner. 12. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have committed a manifest error in holding that Sitab Singh being family members of Kishan Singh had knowledge of the proceedings commenced against Kishan Singh and no notice was necessary U/R-8 to the petitioner. 12. Kishan Singh’s appeal was dismissed by Civil Judge and writ petition was also dismissed and it is not necessary to discuss the reasons given by the Civil Judge as well as by the High Court, as Kishan Singh has not filed any S.L.P. to challenge the above orders and order against him has become final. The petitioners are entitled to relief and their case should be considered on merit after giving them opportunity of adducing evidence and if the Prescribed Authority on appreciation of evidence produced by the petitioners comes to the conclusion that the petitioners had share in the land in dispute, in that event surplus land shall be re-determined. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 26.6.89 and 20.1.1992 passed by Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority respectively, are quashed. Accordingly the application of petitioner (Annexure No.2, dated 4.1.88) is allowed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to re-determine the surplus land after giving opportunity to the petitioners and to decide the following questions:- (i) As to whether the land in question was a land of Sir and Khudkast and if so whether it was ancestral in the hands of late Sri Kishan Singh father of Sitab Singh (since deceased)? (ii) Whether petitioner Sitab Sinqh (since deceased) son of late Sri Kishan Singh was born on or before the date of vesting i.e. 1.7.1952? 14. The learned Prescribed Authority is further directed to expedite the proceeding after giving opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing to the parties and decide the matter expeditiously as far as possible. 15. Till the decision is taken by the Prescribed Authority parties shall maintain status-quo regarding possession in respect of disputed land as on today.