K. N. Goyal, J. - (1.) PROCEEDINGS under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were taken against the petitioner and the matter was finally decided by the appellate court on 21-5-1975. In the meantime the amending Act No. 2 of 1975 was enacted. Section 9 of the amending Act contains transitory provisions to the effect that where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act, before the commencement of this Act, the prescribed authority may, at anytime within a period of two years from the commencement of this Act, redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act. Accordingly, a fresh notice under section 10(2) of the principal Act was issued to the petitioner, while deciding the case after issue of the said fresh notice, the prescribed authority has disregarded even the findings on the issues which had become final by the appellate authority's order dated 21-5-1975. For reopening those issues, it relied upon the pro visions of Section 38-B as inserted in the principal Act by U. P. Act No. XX of 1976 with effect from October 10, 1975, This section lays down that no finding or decision given before 10-10-1975 in any proceedings or on any issue by any court, tribunal or authority in respect of any matter governed by this Act shall bar the retrial of such proceeding or issue under this Act, in accordance with the provisions of this Act as amended from time to time. Learned counsel has contended that this section should be so construed as to apply only to such redetermination as may be necessitated by amend ments made by the Legislature in the principal Act after 10-10-75. The matter is concluded by authority. In Ram lal v. State of U. P. (1978 (4) A.L.R. 809), Hon'ble Gopi Nath J has considered the matter at some length. The constitutional posi tion 'as discussed by him, with regard to the proper scope of legislative power in relation to judicial decisions, which have become final, is that the Legislature can render the decisions ineffective only to the extent those decisions are affected by any changes in the law subsequently brought about with retrospective effect. In view of this basic principle, although the lang uage of section 38-B, on the face of it, is wide enough to cover even redeter mination of issues unaffected by the legislative amendment, the provision has to be limited by the principle of "reading down", to only those matters in respect of which the findings are affected by amendments carried out in the principal Act. Accordingly, the judgment, of the prescribed authority and that of the appellate authority in so far as they disregard the findings on the issues which have become final in the earlier proceedings cannot stand. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order of the prescribed authority dated 15-11-1976 and that of the appellate authority dated 28-1-1977 (annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioner after the issue of fresh notice under section 10(2) of the principal Act, read with section 9 of the amending Act 2 of 1975, afresh in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No order is made as to costs.;