HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33800 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the caveator and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by prescribed authority/respondent no.4 dated 20.3.2025, by which the application of the petitioners for dismissing the misc. case as having abated has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that pursuant to the order passed under Section 10(2) of the ceiling proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 surplus land was declared in respect of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners. The said order was challenged in appeal. The appeal has been partly allowed relegating the matter to the prescribed authority to decide afresh. The petitioners moved an application before the prescribed authority that as they have not been substituted in place of original tenure holders, the Misc. Case No..80 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajendra Kumar) registered pursuant to the remand order should be abated, as the heirs of original tenure holders have not been substituted. 4. The prescribed authority after considering the application filed by the petitioners has rejected it by order dated 20.3.2025 stating that the applicant-petitioners, who were already substituted in appeal, have filed their Vakalatnama in the present proceedings and no question of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ram Kishore Pandey, Ruchi Pandey Bhanu Pratap And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) abatement of the ceiling case arises. 5. The petitioners challenged the order of the prescribed authority in revision before the respondent no.2. However, counsel for the petitioners fairly states that the said revision was not maintainable. 6. In view of the fact that petitioners had got themselves substituted in appeal and at their instance, the appeal was partly allowed and the matter was relegated before the prescribed authority framing specific issue whether holdings of petitioners would be clubbed with the land of the tenure holders while determining the surplus land and the petitioners have put in appearance before the prescribed authority pursuant to the order of the respondent no.2 dated 6.12.2023. No question of abatement of the ceiling case arise. 7. The present writ petition has been filed on misconceived ground and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to move an impleadment application before the prescribed authority to get themselves impleaded for pursuing Misc. Case No.80 of 2024. October 8, 2025 Anil WRIC No. 33800 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad