H. N. SETH, J. By this petition under Artical. 226 of the Constitution, petitioner O. P. saini prays that order of the prescribed authority dated September 10, 1974 rejecting his application for production of evidence, and the order dated 20-9-1974, passed by the District Judge Saharanpur, dismissing his revision application be quashed. Subsequently he moved an application dated 20-1-1975 and further prayed that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-10-1974 Declaring certain land as surplus of his father Phool Singh be also quashed. In due course, a notice under section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon Phool singh, Father of petitioner O. P. saini. That notice was in respect of an area of land which stood recorded in village papers in the name of Phool singh. On 29-6-1974, the petitioner filed an objection stating that his father had not claimed a larger ceiling area on the ground that he had an adult son. According to the petitioner he was the adult son of Phool Singh, who was in cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 36 area about 45 Bighas, for about 12 years. His father Sri Phool singh prevented the Lekhpal from entering his name in the revenue papers and he did not take any step to get his name recorded as he did not want to displease his father. He therefore, prayed that the Lekhpal be directed to correct the entries and record him as being in cultivatiory possession of the plots. He also made a request that he be made a party in ceiling proceedings and his objections heard. He also indicated that he was reserving his right to submit amended objections. On 22-8-1974 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sub-Divisional Officer/prescribed Authority Roorkee, made an order stating that he was not concerned with the objections which the petitioner intended to make, but then he allowed his request for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings and fixed 10-9-1974 for evidence of the objector. On 10-9-1974 the matter came up before the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar, Sri Phool Singh and the Naib Tahsildar appearing for the State raised objections contending that O. P. Saini should not be permitted to adduce any evidence in the case. On 10-9-1974 the matter came up before the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar, Sri Phool Singh and the Naib Tahsildar appearing for the State raised objections contending that O. P. Saini should not be permitted to adduce any evidence in the case. According to them S. D. O. (R) had no jurisdiction to make the order dated 22-8-1974, impleading O. P. Saini as a party to these proceedings. Moreover O. P. Saini was in effect raising a dispute about title which could not be decided by the authorities under the Ceiling Act. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar came to the conclusion that Sri O. P. Saini had no locusstand to challenge or make a counter claim with respect to the rights and shares of the objector Phool Singh. Accordingly, he rejected the application of the petitioner seeking permission to lead evidence in the ceiling proceedings. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-1974 passed by the Addi tional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar, the petitioner challeng ed it by way of revision before District Judge Saharanpur. District Judge Saharanpur held that the revision application was not maintainable and rejected it by his order dated 20-9-1974. The Petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 10- 9-1974 and 20-9-1974 mentioned, above. However, in the meanwhile the Prescribed Authority had disposed of the Ceiling case by its order dated 16th October 1974 and had declared certain land as surplus land of Phool Singh (father of the Petitioner ). The petitioner thereafter moved an application for amendment of the writ petition and challenged the validity of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16th October 1974, as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the petitioner had been impleaded as a party to the proceedings vide order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22-8-1974, Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (R) R. M. Hardwar had no jurisdiction to reject his application per mission to adduce evidence in support of his case. Accordingly, the final order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16th October 1974, declar ing certain land as surplus land of Phool Singh was also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the final order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16th October 1974, declar ing certain land as surplus land of Phool Singh was also liable to be quashed. Before the petitioner can succeed in this petition, he has to satisfy this Court that under the law he was entitled to raise objections in respect of the land which has been declared as surplus and that he had been wrongly precluded from adducing evidence in support of the objections which he had filed or wanted to file. Section 9 of the Act requires that soon as may be, after the date of commencement of the Act, the Prescribed Authority is to publish a general notification calling upon every tenure-holder, holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him to submit a statement of his holding. Section 10 of the Act then provides that in every case where the tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or, submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as it thinks proper, cause to be prepared such statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement has to indicate the land if any exempted under section 6 of the Act and the plots proposed to be declared as surplus. Sub-Section (2) of S. 10 then requires that the Prescribed Authority shall give notice to every such tenure-holder, calling upon him to show cause within a specified period why the statement prepared by it be not taken as correct. After deciding objections to the proposed statement prepared under section 10, if any raised by the tenure-holder, order regarding actual declaration of surplus land is passed under section 11 of the Act. A resume of the aforesaid provision shows that a right to object to the statement prepared under section 10 has been given only to a tenure-holder whose land is sought to be declared as surplus and to no one else. Accordingly, the petitioner could maintain an objection under section 10 (2) of the Act only if he claimed and satisfied the Prescribed Authority that he was the tenure-holder of the land in question. A copy of the objection of the petitioner has been filed as annexure A to this writ Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner could maintain an objection under section 10 (2) of the Act only if he claimed and satisfied the Prescribed Authority that he was the tenure-holder of the land in question. A copy of the objection of the petitioner has been filed as annexure A to this writ Petition. It did not contain any assertion that the peti tioner was in fact a tenure-holder of any portion of the land which had been mentioned in the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under section 10 of the Act. Paragraph 2 of the application filed by the petitioner ran thus:- "that as per the Tehsil record, submitted to this Court, the total tenure area of the land shown in the name of applicants father is included, the exemption made to him, because of his adult son applicant, which is admitted to him and he has not raised any objec tion about it. " The objection raised in this paragraph in substance is that peti tioners father who was recorded as tenure-holder in village papers had made a mistake in not claiming a larger ceiling area with reference to adult son to which he was entitled under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act. The objection contained in this paragraph did not contain any allegation that the petitioner was in fact a tenure-holder in his own right. If at all it could be construed as containing an admission that the petitioner was not himself a tenure-holder of the land in question. Paragraph 3 of the application ran thus:- "that the applicant only adult son is in possession of the culti-vatory land over the Khasra no. 36, in big chuk area about 45 Bighas and doing Kasht over it himself and through his agents, and servants for the last over and about 12 years and all the expenses in Kasht are being made by the applicant. The area about 12 Bighas in Khasras nos. 23, 25, 26 is also in the applicants culti-vatory possession, from the said period, but the entry by the Lekhpal has not been made over and yet in applicants name, as further stopped him not to make entry in applicants name. The applicant also did not displease his father being against his wishes. 23, 25, 26 is also in the applicants culti-vatory possession, from the said period, but the entry by the Lekhpal has not been made over and yet in applicants name, as further stopped him not to make entry in applicants name. The applicant also did not displease his father being against his wishes. " In this paragraph the petitioner merely claimed that he was in actual cultivatory possession over Khasras nos 36, 23, 25 and 26 for over 12 years and that the Lekhpal, at the instance of his father did not record him as being in such possession. Further, the petitioner had not taken any step to get the entries corrected as he did not want to displease his father. The petitioner nowhere stated that he was in adverse posses sion of the plots or that he had acquired rights of a tenure-holder by lapse of time. The averment made in this paragraph indicates that if at all petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the plot as claimed by him, with the consent of his father. Be that as it may, the allegations, made in this paragraph do not suggest that the petitioner was in any way claiming to be the actual tenure-holder of the land in question. He also did not state either in the application filed by him before the Prescribed Authority or in the petition before this Court, any fact to show as to how he claimed to be the tenure- holder of any portion of the land in dispute. As the petitioner did not claim to be a tenure-holder of any land mentioned in the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under section 10 of the Act and no objection at his instance was maintainable, he had no right to be heard before trialising the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under section 11 of the Act. It is true that under section 5 (3) of the Act petitioners father was entitled to certain land over and above 7-30 hactairs for his adult son, but then it does not mean that the son acquires any legal right to any such extra land included in fathers ceiling area. Entire land included in the ceiling area continues to be the tenure of the father. Entire land included in the ceiling area continues to be the tenure of the father. It was for the father to make a claim in that regard and if he did not do so he was to lose some extra land and no legal right of the son who was not a tenure-holder was affected thereby. Son of a tenure-holder therefore does not acquire any right to object to the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that no extra land as provided in section 5 (3) of the Act has been included in the ceiling area of his father. Since the petitioner had no locus stand to file any objection against the statement prepared under section 10 of the Act and it has not been shown that any legal right of his has been infringed, he cannot raise a grievance either that he had not been permitted to produce evidence in support of his claim or that the determination of surplus land has taken place behind his back. The impugned orders passed in this case, therefore, cannot be interfered with in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, at petitioners instance. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. .