ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief, are these: 2. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. The objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was decided by the District Judge, Hamirpur by his judgment dated 5th November, 1977. The appeal was partly allowed. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V. D. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Contention of the counsel is that when the Will dated 9-7-1965 executed by the father of the petitioner had been accepted in the case of Bhola Nath, the eldest son of the petitioner, there was no justification for including the plots bequeathed by the said Will in favour of the two minor grandsons of the testator in the holding of the petitioner. The two minor grandsons of the testator are Rajinder Kumar and Narender Kumar. Their elder brother is Bhola Nath and these three are the sons of the petitioner. It is correct that the said Will has been held to be genuine by the appellate court below. It was further held that the same has been acted upon. However, the Court observed: - "The Will shows that out of three grandsons in whose favour it was executed only Bhola Nath was adult and Rajendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar were minors and they are still minors. Bhola Nath had 1 /3rd share n this land. An area measuring 11.17 acres in terms of irrigated land thus belong to Bhola Nath and it could not be tagged with the holding of Shiv Ram. The remaining ?rd belongs to his minor sons Rajendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar and they being minors it has to be tagged with the land of their father Shiv Ram." 4. It seems to me that the aforesaid finding of the appellate court below is correct in view of the definition of family in Section 3 (7) of the Act which lays down as under: - "3 (7). It seems to me that the aforesaid finding of the appellate court below is correct in view of the definition of family in Section 3 (7) of the Act which lays down as under: - "3 (7). family in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be, (other than a judicially separated wife or husband) minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters)." 5. Sri Ojha contended that in the instant case there was a judicially separated wife and it could not be said as to be whether the minor children resided with their mother or with the petitioner, their father. It seems to me that this contention is untenable. The definition as it stands make no reference to the aspect of living and, therefore, irrespective of whether the minors live with their mother who has been held to be a judicially separated wife or whether they continued to live with their father, who is the petitioner, the holding of the minors has to be included in the holding of the father where the father is the tenure-holder. Where the wife is judicially separated then obviously her holding is not included in the holding of the husband and such judicially separated wife is an independent tenure-holder. However, as the definition stands, the holding of the minor sons and minor daughters of such judicially separated wife will also be included when the ceiling area is computed in the hands of such judicially separated wife. It does seem somewhat odd that the minor childrens holding should be included both in the case of the father and in the case of the judicially separated mother for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area in the hands of each of them. However, it cannot be helped in view of the definition of the family as it stands. It is for the Legislature to amend the definition if it considers it necessary but the court cannot do anything in the matter. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accordingly rejected. I should like to draw the attention to the definition of the tenure-holder, in Section 3 (17) which should also be looked into. The said definition is as under: - "3 (17). tenure-holder means a person who is the holder of a holding, but (except in Chap. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accordingly rejected. I should like to draw the attention to the definition of the tenure-holder, in Section 3 (17) which should also be looked into. The said definition is as under: - "3 (17). tenure-holder means a person who is the holder of a holding, but (except in Chap. III) does not include: - (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure holder; (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder." 6. It clearly shows that the minor children cannot be treated as independent tenure-holders and they go along with their father d their mother. Learned counsel sought to argue certain other contentions but in view of the fact that in the judgment of the appellate court below such contentions have not been shown to have been raised, I did not allow him to raise such new contentions. 7. The petition accordingly fails but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.