JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against certain orders passed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act I of 1961) (hereafter referred to as the Act). 2. A notice under Sec. 10 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. He filed an objection. The objection was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 1-8-1962. The statement prepared under Sec. 10 of the Act was confirmed. The petitioner appealed. The appeal was disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi on 5-2-1963. He exempted plot no. 368 to the extent of an area of four bighas. In other respects, the decision of the Prescribed Authority was confirmed. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority. The appellate authority was the Additional Civil Judge. But the petitioner has impleaded the District Judge, Jhansi as respondent no. 3. 3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, respondent no. 2 did not fix the surplus land at all. Annexure `A' to the affidavit is a copy of the order of respondent no. 2 dated 1-8-1962. The operative part of the order is: "I, therefore, confirm the statement of surplus land in C.L.H. Form No. 3. Now, a statement under Sec. 10 of the Act is prepared in C.L.H. Form No. 3. That statement described both the ceiling area and the surplus area. That statement was confirmed on 1-8-1962. It is not, therefore, correct to say that respondent no. 2 did not fix the surplus area at all. 4. Plot No. 368 consists of two sub-plots No. 368/1 and 368/2. It appears that the Additional Civil Judge allowed the petitioner's claim for exemption as regards plot No. 368/1. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of the authorities as regards plot No. 368/2. The petitioner's contention is that, this plot consists of a grove and cremation land. A copy of the objection filed before respondent No. 2 is not before me. According to annexure `A', the petitioner's grievance was that, plot No. 368 was his threshing ground. According to annexure `B' the argument before the appellate authority was that plot No. 368 was cremation ground. Respondent No. 2 noticed that the entire area has been recorded in the Khasra as under cultivation. According to annexure `A', the petitioner's grievance was that, plot No. 368 was his threshing ground. According to annexure `B' the argument before the appellate authority was that plot No. 368 was cremation ground. Respondent No. 2 noticed that the entire area has been recorded in the Khasra as under cultivation. Whether the plot is under cultivation or not is a question of fact. That finding cannot properly be challenged in writ proceedings. 5. It was urged for the petitioner that he should be permitted to select his plots within his ceiling area. This is permissible under Sec. 9 of the Act. But it appears that the petitioner did not file any statement under Sec. 9 of the Act. He cannot raise the same point in an objection under Sec. 10 of the Act. In an objection under Sec. 10 of the Act, the objector has merely to point out mistakes in the statement prepared under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 10. The fact that the petitioner prefers certain plots cannot be said to be a mistake in preparing the statement under sub-sec. (1) of Sec, 10 of the Act. 6. It was urged before respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is entitled to a concession under clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 of the Act on account of the birth of a son in May, 1962. That claim was rejected by respondent No. 2 and the Civil Judge on the ground that the relevant date is 3-1-1961. Admittedly, the child was not in existence on 3-1-1961. The authorities, therefore, held that the birth of the child in May, 1962 is irrelevant. 7. Respondent No. 2 had to fix the ceiling area of the petitioner. According to clause (a) of Sec. 3, ceiling area means the land determined in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 4. Section deals with ceiling area and is in these. "That this object to the provisions of this ceiling area applicable to shareholder shall be calculated after talking into account all the land in any holding in the state held by him, in his own right........... (2) (a) The ceiling area of a tenure-holder shall be 40 acres of Fair Quality Land. "That this object to the provisions of this ceiling area applicable to shareholder shall be calculated after talking into account all the land in any holding in the state held by him, in his own right........... (2) (a) The ceiling area of a tenure-holder shall be 40 acres of Fair Quality Land. (b) Where the tenure-holder has, or consists of a family having more than five members, the ceiling area of such tenure-holder shall be the area mentioned in clause (a) together with 8 acres of Fair Quality Land for every additional member of the family, subject to the maximum of 24 such acres : "Provided that, at any time, the family comes to consist of not more than five members, all land held by the tenure-holder in excess of the ceiling area under Cl. (a) shall become liable to be treated as surplus land........" 8. Mr. H. P. Gupta, appearing for the respondents, urged that the ceiling area has to be fixed with reference to 3-1-1961 - the date on which the Act came into force. For this contention, reliance was placed upon Sec. 5 of the Act. Sec. 5 states: "(1) As and from the date of enforcement of this Act no tenure-holder shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to hold an area in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him (2) in determining the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holder at the commencement of this Act any transfer or partition of land made after the 20th day of August, 1959, shall be ignored." 9. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 5 is confined to the calculation of ceiling area at the commencement of the Act. Sub-section (2) does not lay down that that ceiling area will hold good for all time. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 5 lays down the principle that no one should hold an area exceeding the ceiling area. This restriction comes into effect from the date of the enforcement or the Act. SIC also does not give any SIC calculating ceiling area. 10. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 5 emphasises that, this restriction comes into play from 3-1-1961. For calculating the area, one must turn to Sec. 4 of the Act. 11. Sec. 4 no where refers to the date of the commencement of the Act. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 4 provides for calculating the surplus area. According to Cl. 10. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 5 emphasises that, this restriction comes into play from 3-1-1961. For calculating the area, one must turn to Sec. 4 of the Act. 11. Sec. 4 no where refers to the date of the commencement of the Act. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 4 provides for calculating the surplus area. According to Cl. (a) of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 4, the ceiling area shall ordinarily be 40 acres of Fair Quality Land. That direction-is subject to Cl. (b) of sub-Sec. (2). If the family is unduly large, the ceiling area may exceed 40 acres of Fair Quality Land. Sec. 4 suggests that the strength of the family has to be considered at the stage of calculating the ceiling area. It was on 1-8-1962 that respondent No. 2 had to calculate the ceiling area. He was satisfied that a child was born on 7-5-1962. That child was apparently in existence on 1-8-1962. So on 1-8-1962 respondent No. 2 could not ignore the son born on 7-5-1962. Respondent No. 2 and the Civil Judge were wrong in supposing that the ceiling area has to be fixed with reference to 3-1-1961. 12. The Additional Civil Judge has remanded the case to respondent No. 2 for fresh determination of the surplus land. When respondent No. 2 now proceeds to determine surplus land as directed by the order of remand, respondent No. 2 will no doubt proceed to refix the ceiling area and surplus area in the light of the observations made above. 13. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.