ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2). After the objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority three appeals were filed before the appellate court below. One appeal was filed by the petitioner, another was filed by Ku. Moti Begum, Ls opposite party No. 8 and a third appeal was filed by the opposite parties Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7. All the three appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the appellate court below, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the petition. The petitioner has come up in the instant petition. Sri Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended before me that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below were not justified in including the land held by the petitioner father Sri Wali Mohammad which was bequeathed by the latter in favour of the opposite parties Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 by a Will dated 15th December, 1974. It seemed that the land had stood in the name of the petitioners father Sri Wali Mohammad which was treated to have been inherited by the petitioner and therefore the notice under-S. 10 (2) issued to the petitioner included such land also apart from the plots which independently stood in the name of the petitioner. In the said notice certain lands which stood in the name of Kumari Moti Begum were also included in the holding of the petitioner. In the objections which were filed by the petitioner he objected to the inclusion of the land shown in the name of Kumari Moti Begum and to the land which stood in the name of his deceased father and which according to him was not inherited by him but went to certain legatees affected in their favour by the aforesaid will of his father. However, these objections were not acceptable to the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the controversy went to the appellate court. One appeal was filed by the petitioner himself and another appeal was filed by Ku. Moti Begum and the third appeal was filed by the said legatees against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 31-8-1976 rejecting an application dated 18th August, 1976 whereby the opposite parties Nos. One appeal was filed by the petitioner himself and another appeal was filed by Ku. Moti Begum and the third appeal was filed by the said legatees against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 31-8-1976 rejecting an application dated 18th August, 1976 whereby the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 sought to place their objections against the Prescribed Authoritys order dated 30th June, 1976. The appellate authority allowed the appeal of Ku. Moti Begum and directed the plots standing in her name to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner but so far as the plots of the petitioners father Sri Wall Mohammad were concerned, the petitioners contention that the said plots should not have been included in his holding on the ground that the father had executed a Will, was rejected. The appeal filed by the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 was also dismissed. 2. Sri Islam contended that the basic point to be considered is that it was not the holding of the father of the petitioner which was in the picture. It was the petitioner who was being preceded against and in such circumstances the point was that the plots held by the petitioner alone could be included. He has further contended that the Will should have been accepted. Lastly, he contended that on the basis of the Will mutation had taken place in favour of the legatees and therefore notices should have been issued to them. In my view these contentions are not tenable. The father of the petitioner died in June, 1975 and it seems that it will not be possible to accept that any tenure holder could have executed any Will on that day which would have the effect of defeating the Ceiling Law. It seems to me that if Sri Islams contentions were accepted then it would be possible for any tenure-holder to execute such a Will and to claim that the legacies bequeathed by such will should be given effect to, then the easiest thing for any tenure-holder would be to defeat the Ceiling Law by executing such Will and defeating the law. I do not think that this is really possible. I do not think that this is really possible. I have so held in many judgments of mine and in this view of the matter any Will which has been executed after 8th June, 1973, in my opinion, cannot be allowed to defeat the provisions of the ceiling law. Further, I have to observe that the genuineness of the Will was not acceptable to the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below; I do not think that the said finding of fact can in any manner be interfered with in these proceedings. In this view of the matter the petition fails and is dismissed but there will be ho order as to costs.