JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Since subject matter of both these petitions is the same, which relate to declaration of certain land as surplus under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act"), the Court proceeds to decide the writ petitions by the common judgment and order which follows: 2. Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 was filed by one Kaushal Kishore Singh on whose death, his wife Panna Devi has been substituted, however, no substitution application in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 has been made to substitute the legal heirs of Kaushal Kishoree Singh, who has been arrayed as respondent no.4 in the said writ petition. 3. Since these proceedings before this Court are pending since the year 1997 and as a matter of fact, the order by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Unnao which is subject matter of challenge in these matters was passed way back in the year 1996 and sufficient time has elapsed since then, as such in the interest of justice, it is provided that Smt Panna Devi shall be deemed to be substituted in place of deceased respondent no.4-Kaushal Kishore Singh in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997. Even otherwise, Kaushal Kishore Singh appears to be a proforma respondent in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997. 4. Heard Sri Keshav Ram Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.4 to 7 in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997. 5. Sri Sheo Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents have also been heard in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997. 6. The facts, which can be gathered from the pleadings available on record of these petitions, are that initially the notices under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act were issued to Kaushal Kishore Singh and Smt Anusuiya Devi, who was the mother of Kaushal Kishore Singh in respect of the land of khata nos.8 and 356, situate in village Chaura and khata nos.2 and 16, situate in village Pariyar, District Unnao. In all the aforesaid four gatas, the petitioner-Kaushal Kishore Singh and Anusuiya Devi were recorded as co-sharers, however, they were holding the tenure independently. 7. In all the aforesaid four gatas, the petitioner-Kaushal Kishore Singh and Anusuiya Devi were recorded as co-sharers, however, they were holding the tenure independently. 7. In Ceiling Case No.167 which was decided on 30.01.1975 by the Prescribed Authority, Unnao, an area of 1 bigha, 12 biswas out of gata no.1482 belonging to Kaushal Kishore Singh, situate in village Pariyar was declared surplus. 8. In respect of Anusuiya Devi a case was registered on the basis of notice issued to her under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act, namely, Case No.142, which was decided by the Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 03.03.1975 and an area of eight bighas, twelve biswas, out of gata nos.1236 and 1257 of khata no.2, situate in village Pariyar was declared surplus in so far as Anusuiya Devi was concerned. In terms of the aforesaid two orders dated 30.01.1975 and 03.03.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority in two separate cases drawn under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act against Kausal Kishore Singh and Anusuiya Devi, the land was declared surplus and accordingly vested in the State and that might have been managed and settled thereafter in terms of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. 9. It is not in dispute that neither the State nor the tenure holders, namely, Kaushal Kishore Singh and Anusuiya Devi challenged the said orders dated 30.01.1975 and 03.03.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority by way of filing any appeal or instituting any other proceedings. Thus, so far as declaration of land as surplus from the land belonging to Kaushal Kishore Singh and Anusuiya Devi are concerned, the order dated 30.01.1975 and 03.03.1975 became final. The land which was not declared surplus and remained with the aforesaid two tenure holders was thereafter enjoyed by them as per their rights. 10. In the year 1992, Anusuiya Devi is said to have died. 11. It has also been stated by learned counsel representing the respondent nos.4 to 7 in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 that Anusuiya Devi in her life time had executed a will in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 on 20.01.1990 bequeathing her land in their favour. The said will deed is said to be a registered deed. 12. 11. It has also been stated by learned counsel representing the respondent nos.4 to 7 in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 that Anusuiya Devi in her life time had executed a will in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 on 20.01.1990 bequeathing her land in their favour. The said will deed is said to be a registered deed. 12. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 7 has also stated that respondent nos.4 to 7 were not in the know of the will deed dated 20.01.1990 and in the meantime, after the death of Anusuiya Devi, the name of Kaushal Kishore Singh as her successor being her son was recorded perhaps under Section 33 of U.P. Land Revenue Act in Form PA-11. On recording of the name of Kaushal Kishore Singh over the property which was left behind her by Anusuiya Devi, the Tehsildar concerned appears to have prepared a report dated 02.02.1994 stating therein that if the land held by Kaushal Kishore Singh is clubbed with the land inherited by him from Anusuiya Devi, the total area of land held by Kaushal Kishore Singh exceeds the ceiling as prescribed under the Ceiling Act and accordingly a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act was issued against Kaushal Kishore Singh. 13. In response to the said notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act, Kaushal Kishore Singh filed objection taking therein various pleas, including the plea that he had not been in possession over the land in question and several other persons were in possession having built their dwelling houses etc. In the proceedings initiated on issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act against Kaushal Kishore Singh, an application seeking impleadment was moved by Smt Ragini, Smt Shalini and Smt Malini, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997, stating therein that the land left by Anusuiya Devi has wrongly been clubbed with the land of Kaushal Kishore Singh for the reason that in fact, the said land would devolve on them on the basis of will deed executed by Anusuiya Devi in their favour on 02.10.1992. The application seeking impleadment moved by the petitioners of Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 was rejected on 21.03.1996 and the Prescribed Authority decided the said matter vide his order dated 25.07.1996. 14. The application seeking impleadment moved by the petitioners of Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 was rejected on 21.03.1996 and the Prescribed Authority decided the said matter vide his order dated 25.07.1996. 14. By the said order dated 25.07.1996, the Prescribed Authority rejected the claim of Kaushal Kishore Singh and declared the area of 5 biswas of plot no.1257, 5 bighas, 14 biswas and 10 biswansi of plot no.1259/1 and 57 bighas, 12 biswas of plot no.1495/1 as surplus from the holding of Anusuiya Devi. Similarly, from the holding of Kaushal Kishore Singh, an area of 3 bighas, 9 biswas of plot no.1260 and another area of 31 bighas 16 biswas and 5 biswansi of plot no.1477/1 was declared as surplus. 15. The order dated 25.07.1996 was assailed both by Kaushal Kishore Singh and Smt Ragini, Smt Shalini and Smt Malini by filing appeal before the appellate court under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act. The appeal filed by Smt Ragini and two others has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow vide his order dated 28.02.1997. By another order passed on 28.02.1997, the appellate court has also dismissed the appeal filed by Kaushal Kishore Singh as well under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act. Thus, in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997, the order dated 25.07.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) and the order dated 28.02.1997 passed by the appellate court whereby the appeal preferred by the Kaushal Kishore Singh was dismissed, have been challenged in these proceedings before this Court. 16. In Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 under challenge are the appellate order dated 28.02.1997 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 25.07.1996. 17. Respondent nos.4 to 7 were impleaded in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 vide order of this Court passed on 18.10.2008. 16. In Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 under challenge are the appellate order dated 28.02.1997 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 25.07.1996. 17. Respondent nos.4 to 7 were impleaded in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 vide order of this Court passed on 18.10.2008. They while seeking their impleadment in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 have submitted that they have sufficient interest in the matter for the reason that the tenure holder Anusuiya Devi had executed a will in their favour on 20.01.1990, based on which they applied for probate in the year 1994 before the civil court, which was granted on 10.05.2002 by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and on coming to know that the land which devolved on them on the basis of will dated 20.01.1990 has been declared to be surplus in ceiling proceedings, they moved application seeking impleadment in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997, as the orders declaring the land as surplus are under challenge herein. 18. Since respondent nos.4 to 7 were impleaded in these proceedings vide order dated 18.10.2008 passed by this Court, learned counsel representing them and espousing their cause has also been heard. 19. It is true that respondent nos.4 to 7 were not in picture either before the Prescribed Authority or before the Appellate Authority in the proceedings initiated on issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act against Kaushal Kishore Singh, however, the facts as narrated above go on to show that since the notice under Section 10 (2) was issued against Kaushal Kishore Singh on the ground that he inherited the property left behind by Anusuiya Devi and it is Anusuiya Devi's land on which the respondent nos.4 to 7 are laying their claim on the basis of will dated 20.01.1990, as such they have sufficient interest in the matter. 20. As regards, the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, there are two primary issues which need determination in this case. 21. The first issue which has been raised in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 by Smt Ragini and two others is that the application seeking their impleadment was rejected by means of the order dated 21.03.1996. As regards, the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, there are two primary issues which need determination in this case. 21. The first issue which has been raised in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 by Smt Ragini and two others is that the application seeking their impleadment was rejected by means of the order dated 21.03.1996. The objection made by Smt Ragini and others was to the effect that in fact, the property left behind by Anusuiya Devi will devolved on them on the basis of the will executed by her in their favour on 02.10.1992. 22. It appears that from perusal of the order passed by the appellate court dated 28.02.1997, which is under challenge in Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997, that application seeking impleadment moved by them was rejected solely on the ground that the will was not produced. 23. It is strange to notice that on such ground application seeking impleadment has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the said ground has been reiterated by the appellate court for not finding favour with the claim put forth by Smt Ragini and others. 24. The question of leading evidence to establish the case put forth by Smt Ragini and others would have arisen only once they were permitted to be impleaded and contest the matter and accordingly, in my considered opinion, rejection of application moved by Smt Ragini and two others for their impleadment in the proceedings initiated on issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act against Kaushal Kishore Singh, cannot be justified. Howsoever frivolous their claims may be, but these individuals had a right to establish and prove their claim and further to prove the will dated 02.10.1992 said to have been executed by Anusuiya Devi in their favour. By not allowing their application, the Prescribed Authority has clearly erred in law inasmuch as the petitioners of Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 have been deprived of their right of hearing in the matter. 25. Hypothetically, if it is presumed that the will dated 02.10.1992 is proved, in that eventuality the land said to have been inherited by Kaushal Kishore Singh from Anusuiya Devi would not be clubbed with the land already held by him so as to invite issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act second time. 25. Hypothetically, if it is presumed that the will dated 02.10.1992 is proved, in that eventuality the land said to have been inherited by Kaushal Kishore Singh from Anusuiya Devi would not be clubbed with the land already held by him so as to invite issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act second time. However, this is only to illustrate the prejudice which has been caused, by not allowing impleadment application moved by Smt Ragini and two others, not only to the petitioners of Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 but also to the cause of Kaushal Kishore Singh. 26. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am unable to find myself in agreement with the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the impleadment application moved by Smt Ragini and two others. 27. The other question which needs consideration, which has vehemently been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner as also by learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 7 in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 is as to whether the order passed by the Prescribed Authority can be sustained. 28. It has been argued that in fact, once the exercise of declaration of surplus land was completed in respect of tenure holder Kaushal Kishore Singh by means of the order dated 30.01.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority, no appeal was filed either by the tenure holder or by the State against the said order. In case it is presumed that Kaushal Kishore Singh inherited the property left behind her by Anusuiya Devi after her death and the same could be clubbed, the exercise which ought to have been undertaken by the Prescribed Authority is provided under Section 29 read with Section 30 of the Ceiling Act and no notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act could have been issued. 29. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the scheme of the Ceiling Act, makes it specifically clear that subsequent declaration of further land as surplus has to be made only in terms of Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act and not by initiating proceedings de novo or afresh by issuing notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act. Even if it is presumed that initially the notice issued to Kaushal Kishore Singh was wrongly mentioned as under Section 10 (2) and it ought to be treated a notice under Section 29/30 of the Ceiling Act, the same would not validate the order passed by the Prescribed Authority unless the State-respondents are able to show that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 25.07.1996 is in conformity with the requirement of the provision of Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act. From a perusal of the order dated 25.07.1996, it is abundantly clear that the Prescribed Authority has not taken into account the provision of Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act; rather he appears to have clearly proceeded afresh and that is how he has relied upon certain reports presented to him by his subordinates and has, thus determined not only the surplus area of the land but also its nature. 30. Such redetermination of nature of the land in a proceedings under Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act, in my considered opinion, is not permissible except in a case which is governed by Section 29 (1) (b) of the Ceiling Act. Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference:- 29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land. - Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, - (a) one land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under a decree or order of any Court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him; or (b) any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grove-land loses its character as grove-land or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the categories exempted, the ceiling area shall be liable to be redetermined [and accordingly the provisions of this Act, except Section 16, shall mutatis mutandis apply]. 30. Determination of surplus land regarding future acquisition. 30. Determination of surplus land regarding future acquisition. - (1) Where any land has become liable to be treated as surplus land [* * *] under Section 29, the tenure-holder shall, within such period as may be prescribed submit, a statement to the Prescribed Authority in the form and in the manner laid down under Section 9 indicating in the statement the plot or plots which he would like to retain as a part of his ceiling area. (2) (a) Where the statement submitted under sub-section (1) is accepted by the Prescribed Authority, it shall proceed to determine the surplus land accordingly. (b) Where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement required to be submitted under sub-section (1) or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed in the manner laid down under Section 10. (c) The provisions of this Act in respect of declaration, acquisition, disposal and settlement of surplus land, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to surplus land covered by this section. 31. From the aforequoted provisions of Section 29 of the Ceiling Act, what transpires is that if some land comes to be held by a tenure holder under a decree or order of any court or as a result of succession or transfer or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession etc. and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area, the ceiling area is liable to be determined. This is the first exigency in which ceiling area is liable to be redetermined. The second exigency envisaged for redetermination of ceiling area can be found in sub-clause (b) of Section 29 (1) of the Ceiling Act, according to which, in case in a previous ceiling proceedings, any land which was found unirrigated subsequently becomes irrigated as a result of some source of irrigation from the State irrigation work or in case any grove land loses its character as grove land then again redetermination of ceiling area is permissible. 32. 32. When the order dated 25.07.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority is tested on the anvil of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Ceiling Act, what emerges is that redetermination of ceiling area was permissible in case it is found that Kaushal Kishore Singh held area more than the ceiling area applicable to him on clubbing of the land left behind her by Anusuiya Devi, with his land, however, in absence of any finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority about any unirrigated land becoming irrigated as a result of irrigation from State irrigation work, the order of the Prescribed Authority is not sustainable. 33. It is further noticeable that the issue as to whether the land said to be inherited by Kaushal Kishore Singh was irrigated or not, already stood determined in the proceedings imitated earlier against Anusuiya Devi herself which culminated in passing of the order dated 03.03.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Thus, in absence of any finding of such unirrigated land becoming irrigated by some State irrigation work, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 25.07.1996 cannot be termed to be in consonance with the requirement of Section 29. 34. I have no hesitation to observe and hold that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 25.07.1996 appears to have been passed treating the proceedings to be under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act and not treating the said proceeding under Sections 29 and 30 of the Ceiling Act. In this view of the matter alone, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority passed on 25.07.1996 cannot withstand judicial scrutiny by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellate court while dealing with the appeal filed by Kaushal Kishore Singh has also not looked into the aforesaid aspects of the matter and hence, the appellate order dated 28.02.1997 is also vitiated. 35. So far as the locus of respondent nos.4 to 7, it has vehemently been argued by Sri Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents that they cannot be permitted to participate in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the orders under challenge in these writ petitions are liable to be set-aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh. The reason, as argued by learned Standing Counsel, is that though the will in their favour said to have been executed by Anusuiya Devi is dated 20.01.1990, however, during this entire period the respondent nos.4 to 7 never took any objection either before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority. He has also stated that they have directly sought their impleadment in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 and as such, their participation in the proceedings initiated against Kaushal Kishore Singh would not be legally permissible. He has further stated that in fact, both the wills said to have been executed by Anusuiya Devi, namely will dated 02.10.1992 said to have been executed in favour of Smt Ragini and others and the will dated 20.01.1990 said to have been executed in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 have been set up only to defeat the purpose of the Ceiling Act. 36. The logic which comes forth from Sri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents for making such argument is that it was very well known to Anusuiya Devi that after her death, Kaushal Kishore Singh being her sole son will inherit the property and in case such inherited property is clubbed with the land already held by Kaushal Kishore Singh, the same will exceed the ceiling and accordingly the land in question will be declared surplus and hence Anusuiya Devi acting cleverly disallowed inheritance of the property in favour of Kaushal Kishore Singh and it is because of this reason that the cases based on two wills have been set up both by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 46 (Ceiling) of 1997 and respondent nos.4 to 7 of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997. 37. Dealing with the first objection raised by Sri Pathak about participation of respondent nos.4 to 7 in the proceedings, it may be observed that Anusuiya Devi is said to have died in the year 1992 and thereafter in the year 1994 itself on some legal advise, respondent nos.4 to 7 moved before the appropriate court of civil jurisdiction for obtaining probate on the basis of said will. The probate in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 was granted by the civil court on 10.05.2002 and thereafter they have moved application seeking their impleadment in the year 2004 in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997. 38. The probate in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 was granted by the civil court on 10.05.2002 and thereafter they have moved application seeking their impleadment in the year 2004 in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997. 38. At the time when probate was obtained by respondent nos.4 to 7, no proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act were pending neither any appeal etc. was pending under the Ceiling Act; rather the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as also by the appellate authority were under challenge in these two petitions and accordingly respondent nos.4 to 7 sought their impleadment in Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997. 39. It is noticeable that if on some advise instead of immediately participating in the ceiling proceedings which were instituted on issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act against Kaushal Kishore Singh, the respondent nos.4 to 7 of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 applied for probate and after probate was granted, they moved application seeking their impleadment in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997, then they cannot be faulted with for laches etc. as has been argued by learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 40. In the application seeking impleadment, which stands allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2008, respondent nos.4 to 7 of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997 have given sufficient explanation and reason for their impleadment. 41. In this view, the first objection raised in this regard by the Standing Counsel merits rejection, which is hereby rejected. The other argument raised by learned Standing Counsel regarding intention of Anusuiya Devi by executing wills dated 20.01.1990 and 02.10.1992, I may only observe that genuineness of these wills itself is yet to be determined, though there is a probate on the basis of will dated 20.01.1990 said to have been executed in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 7. It is also noticeable that it is not a case where Anusuiya Devi had executed the will before earlier declaration of surplus land under the Ceiling Act. As a matter of fact, the land held by her was declared surplus as the Prescribed Authority had passed the order way back in the year 1975. 4 to 7. It is also noticeable that it is not a case where Anusuiya Devi had executed the will before earlier declaration of surplus land under the Ceiling Act. As a matter of fact, the land held by her was declared surplus as the Prescribed Authority had passed the order way back in the year 1975. Accordingly, the land held by Anusuiya Devi after the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 03.03.1975 cannot, in any manner, be said to be surplus land or it could not have been subjected to ceiling proceedings for redetermination under Sections 29 and 30 as well, unless she would have acquired some more land as per the requirement of Section 29 (a) or some unirrigated land would have become irrigated under Section 29 (1) (b) of the Ceiling Act. The proceedings for determination were initiated not against Anusuiya Devi but against Kaushal Kishore Singh, who is said to have inherited the property from Anusuiya Devi after her death. 42. It is also very relevant to observe that after the order dated 03.03.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority whatever land remained with Anusuiya Devi, she was the owner of the said property and had every right to enjoy its fruits to the fullest. 43. Section 169 of U.P. Z.A & L.R Act which at the relevant time was applicable, statutorily permitted Anusuiya Devi to bequeath her land which she retained after the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 03.03.1975. Section 169 clearly enables a bhumidhari with transferrable rights to bequeath his holding or any part thereof which is extracted hereinbelow:- "169. Bequest by a bhumidhar. - (1) A [bhumidhar with transferable rights] may by will bequeath his holding or any part thereof, except as provided in [sub-section (2-A).] (2) [* * *] [(2-A) In relation to a [bhumidhar with transferable rights] belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of [Sections 157-A and 157-B] shall apply to the making of bequests as they apply to transfer during lifetime.] (3) Every will made under provisions of sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom or usage, [be in writing, attested by two persons and registered.]" 44. In view of the aforesaid discussions, since ceiling proceedings were not initiated for redetermination of any surplus land against Anusuiya Devi; rather they were initiated for redetermination of surplus land held by Kaushal Kishore Singh on his inheriting the property left by Anusuiya Devi after her death, submission of learned Standing Counsel that case set up by respondent nos.4 to 7 in Writ Petition No. 59 (Ceiling) of 1997 and also the case set up by the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 46 (Ceiling) of 1997 on the basis of will deeds dated 20.01.1990 and 02.10.1992 respectively is a ploy to defeat the object of the Ceiling Act, does not sound appealing which is hereby rejected, as the said argument, in my considered opinion, runs contrary to common logic as discussed above. 45. To buttress his submission further, learned Standing Counsel has stated that in terms of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act, any transfer of land made by tenure holder after 24.01.1971 has to be ignored. The said submission of learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is not acceptable for the simple reason that devolution of right on the basis of will cannot be said to be transfer for the purposes of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act, as has been held by this Court in the case of Jograj Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in, 2007 2 ACJ 1375. 46. For the reasons given above, both petitions deserve to be allowed. 47. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 25.07.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Unnao in Case No.12/35, under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh and the order dated 28.02.1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No.32/95-96, under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Kaushal Kishore vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Unnao, are hereby quashed. The order dated 28.02.1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Appeal No.33/95-96, under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Ragini and others vs. State of U.P. is also hereby quashed. The order dated 21.03.1996, which has been passed on the order sheet by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the impleadment application moved by Ragini and two others is also hereby quashed. 48. The order dated 21.03.1996, which has been passed on the order sheet by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the impleadment application moved by Ragini and two others is also hereby quashed. 48. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners of Writ Petition No.46 (Ceiling) of 1997 and also to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 of Writ Petition No.59 (Ceiling) of 1997. The Prescribed Authority while deciding the matter being remitted to him under this order shall decide the same in accordance with law and he shall also take into account the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. The proceedings under this order shall commence before the Prescribed Authority on 11.02.2019. 49. Since all the parties are present before this Court, they stand informed of the date fixed before the Prescribed Authority and accordingly they shall appear before the Prescribed Authority on 11.02.2019 either in person or through counsel. 50. The proceedings under this order shall be expedited and concluded within a period of four months from 11.02.2019. 51. It is also directed that the parties to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and the adjournments if prayed for will be permissible to be granted by the Prescribed Authority only in exceptional circumstances. 52. There will be no order as to cost.