JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Sri Yashovardhan Swarup, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.E. Khan, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. In brief the controversy involved in the present case is to the effect that Shri Raja Jitendra Singh is the tenure holder of Khasra Plot No.389M measuring 10 bigha, 0 Biswa, 6 biswansi situated in Village-Chandrapur, Pargana-Samrauta, Tehsil Mahrajganj, District-Raebareli (hereinafter referred to as land in dispute). 3. On 02.10.1965, he married with Rani Chandra Kant Singh during the life time of his first wife, Rani Suprabha Devi. Out of their wedlock, petitioner no.1 was born on 16.07.1966 and the petitioner no.2 on 16.07.1967. 4. Raja Jitendra Singh by a registered gift deed dated 01.06.1968 registered in Register No.1 Volume 304 at pages 124/127 at Srl. No.1184 had gifted Khasa Plot No.389M measuring 20 bigha in southern side situated in Village-Chandapur, Pargana Samrauta Tahsil, Mahrajganj, District-Raebareli to the petitioner no.1 under the guardianship of his mother Rani Chandra Kant Singh as he was minor at that time, accepted and possession has been delivered. 5. Further, Raja Jitendra Singh by way of another registered gift deed dated 01.06.1968 registered in Register No.1 Volume No.305 on pages 43/45 at Srl. No.1195 had gifted Khasra Plot No.389M measuring 18 bigha, 7 biswam 3 biswansi in northern side and Khasra Plot No.559 measuring 1 bigha 12 biswa, 17 biswansi totalling 20 bigha situated in Village Chandapur, Pargana Samrauta, Tahsil-Mahrajganj, District-Raebareli to the petitioner no..2 under the guardianship of his mother Rani Chandra Kant Singh as he was minor at that time and the same was accepted and possession has been delivered. 6. Thereafter, on the basis of the registered gift deeds, petitioners' name have been recorded in the revenue record and entries have been made in the Khatauni of Fasli Year 1390-95. On 02.08.1984, notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was served upon Raja Jitendra Singh on 10.09.1984. 7. After receiving the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, Raja Jitendra Singh filed an objection on the ground that he has already gifted Khasra Plot No.389M by way of registered gift deed in the year 1968 in favour of the petitioners. The same has been accepted and in this regard, entries have been made in their favour in the revenue record. The same has been accepted and in this regard, entries have been made in their favour in the revenue record. It is further stated in reply to the notice that in respect of the land in dispute, the earlier proceedings has been initiated against him by issuing a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act where he has filed objection taking the same ground, accepted by order dated 16.01.1979 by the prescribed authority. So, in view of the said facts, proceeding against the petitioners is barred by the principles of res judicata as well as provisions of Section 29 of the Act. Thereafter, he did not appear in the proceedings in question, as such, an ex-parte order dated 22.03.1986 has been passed by the prescribed authority/opposite party no.2. 8. On 30.06.1986, Raja Jitendra Singh moved an application for recall of the order dated 22.03.1986 passed by the prescribed authority. 9. In addition to the above said fact, petitioner no.2 also filed an application for recall/restoration before the opposite party no.2 aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.1986 taking the plea that the land in dispute which has been declared surplus of Raja Jitendra Singh by order dated 22.03.1986 has already gifted to him by the gift deed executed in his favour by Raja Jitendra Singh against whom the order dated 22.03.1986 has been passed. 10. By order dated 13.08.1986, the prescribed authority/S.D.M., Maharajganj, Raebareli has rejected the application moved by Raja Jitendra Singh for recall of the order dated 22.03.1986. 11. Aggrieved by the said facts, Raja Jitendra Singh filed an appeal registered as Appeal No.26 (86-87) under Section 13 of the Act before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow on 20.10.1986. 12. In the meantime, as the opposite party no.1 proceeded to the possession of the land in dispute i.e. Khasra Plot No.389M measuring 10 bigha, 0 Biswa, 6 biswansi from the petitioners, so they for redressal of their grievances approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 2777 of 1987 (Ceiling) of 1987, the relief as claimed reads as under : - "Wherefore it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that by issuing a writ of mandamus against the opposite parties, the opposite parties be command not to deprive or dispossess the petitioners from their land or any portion thereof comprising in Khasra Plot No.389 M mentioned above." 13. On 14.01.1988, this Court has granted the interim order quoted herein below: - "Till the next date of listing, status quo shall be maintained and in case petitioners are in possession their possession shall not be disturbed." 14. By order dated 24.01.1990, Appeal No.26 (86-87) filed under Section 13 of the Act by Raja Jitendra Singh has been dismissed which reads as under : - "Appeal is absent. Counsel for the State is present. Dismissed." 15. During the pendency of writ petition, Raja Jitendra Singh died and certain developments had taken place after passing of the order dated 24.01.1990 in Appeal No.26 (86- 87) by the opposite party no.3 etc., so an applications for amendment in the writ petition was moved, allowed by this Court. Accordingly, amendments have been incorporated in the memo of the Writ Petition No. 2777 (Ceiling) of 1987 and the prayer of the writ petition was also amended which reads as under: - "b. It is also respectfully prayed that after summoning the record from opposite parties, writ of certiorari, or any other suitable writ, direction or order, quashing the ex parte order dated 22.03.1986 under the celling Act passed against Raja Jitendra Singh and in pursuance of which Amal Daramad order dated 07.08.1986 and carried out on 12.06.1986 be also quashed. c. It is also prayed that the opposite parties, if deemed proper, be also commanded to dispose of application dated 30.08.86. d. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned second notice dated 02.08.1984 issued under Section 10 (2) of Ceiling Act. e. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 13.08.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority f- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 24.01.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority." 16. Lastly, Writ Petition No. 2777 of 1987 (Ceiling) of 1987 (Kaushlendra Singh v. State of U.P.) disposed by order dated 14.05.2015, operative portion reads as under: - "Thus, in view of the above said facts, the interest of justice will sub-serve in the present case, if the petitioners are permitted to move an application for recall of the order dated 24.01.1990 passed in Appeal No.26 (86-87) as well as application for substitution in order to bring them on record as legal heirs of deceased/Raja Jitendra Singh. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners are permitted to move an application for recall of the order dated 24.01.1990 passed in Appeal No.26 (86-87) as well as application for substitution in order to bring them on record as legal heirs of deceased/Raja Jitendra Singh within a period of four weeks from today and if such, applications are moved, the appellate authority/opposite party no.3 shall decide the same within a further period of three months in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. For a period of four months or till the decision is taken by the appellate authority, whichever is earlier, petitioner are entitled for the interim protection as granted by this Court by order dated 14.01.1988." 17. Accordingly, the matter has come up for consideration before respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 26/86-87 (Raja Jitendra Singh v. State) under Section 13 of Ceiling Act in which he has moved an application for recall of the order dated 24.01.1990 as well as application substitution in order to bring them on record as legal heirs of deceased/Raja Jitendra Singh. 18. By means of the impugned order dated 28.08.2016 respondent No. 1 rejected the application for recall on the ground of delay that no sufficient reason has been given by the petitioner in moving the application for reacall of the order dated 24.01.1990. 19. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record as well as taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2777 of 1987 (Ceiling) of 1987 the position which emerged out that the petitioners have been permitted to move an application for recall of the order dated 24.01.1990 passed in appeal No. 26 (86-87) as well as application for substitution in order to bring them on record as legal heirs of deceased/Raja Jitendra Singh. Thus, the action on the respondent No. 1 thereby dismissing the application for recall moved on 08.06.2015 by order dated 24.01.1990 on the ground of delay is contrary to the direction as given by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 2777 of 1987 (Ceiling) of 1987 (Kaushlendra Singh v. State of U.P.)as well as law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand, AIR 1977 SC 1011 , wherein it has been held in paragraph Nos. 11 and 14, relevant portion quoted herein below: - "11. The remand order was undoubtedly binding on the lower Court and had directed a limited enquiry and passing of a decree 'in favour of the party in whose favour the balance will be found due.' The High Court held that after the remand the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to look into the Bombay accounts as a whole and on account of the misapprehension of the observations of the remand order an illegal decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiff. 14. Be that as it may, in an appeal against the High Court's finding, the Supreme Court is not bound by what the High Court might have held in its remand order. It is true that a subordinate court is bound by the direction of the High Court. It is equally true that the same High Court, hearing the matter on a second occasion or any other court of coordinate authority hearing the matter cannot discard the earlier holding, but a finding in a remand order cannot bind a higher Court when it comes up in appeal before it." 20. This Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors, 1982 AWC 183 All. after taking reliance on the judgment given in the case of Gulabchand Chhotelal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 and Jasraj Inder Singh (Supra), in paragraph No. 13, has held as under: - "13. This question can also be considered from another aspect. The judicial structure in this country is based on hierarchy of courts. after taking reliance on the judgment given in the case of Gulabchand Chhotelal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 and Jasraj Inder Singh (Supra), in paragraph No. 13, has held as under: - "13. This question can also be considered from another aspect. The judicial structure in this country is based on hierarchy of courts. According to the provisions of law every subordinate court, tribunal or authority is bound by the order and direction of superior court, 'authority or tribunal howsoever erroneous it may be which can be challenged only in the superior court, tribunal or authority. It is not open to the subordinate court, authority or tribunal to disregard or disobey the order or direction of its superior -otherwise it would lead to chaos and there could be no finality of any litigation. Therefore, the Board of Revenue being a subordinate tribunal was bound to honour the finding recorded by this Court in writ jurisdiction and in doing so it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has committed any manifest error which may call for interference in writ jurisdiction." 21. Therefore, the Board of Revenue being a subordinate tribunal was bound to honour the finding recorded by this Court in writ jurisdiction and in doing so it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has committed any manifest error which may call for interference in writ jurisdiction." 21. Thus, once the petitioners have been permitted to move an application for recall of the order dated 24.01.1990 passed in Appeal No. 26/86-87 (Raja Jitendra Singh v. State) as well as application for substitution in order to bring them on record as legal heirs of deceased/Raja Jitendra Singh, the appellate authority should have allowed the same keeping in view the direction given by writ court as well as Section 14 of the Limitation Act and proceeded to hear the matter on merit because the direction given by the higher court is binding on the sub-ordinate court/tribunal/authority as the judicial structure in this Court is based on hierarchy of the courts, hence appellate court being a sub-ordinate court to this Court is bound to honour the finding given by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2015 in its writ jurisdiction and he cannot disobey the same, accordingly, the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 is not in the letter and spirit of the order passed by writ court, hence committed manifest error, so the order dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure No. 1) passed by passed by respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Region, Lucknow in appeal No. 26/86-87 under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act is set aside with a direction to appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order on merit. 22. For a period of six months or the decision taken by appellate authority whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo as exists today. 23. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.