ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the VIII Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 3-8-1976 in Ceiling Appeal No. 352 of 1976 Ram Chandra v. State of U. P. The prescribed authority through its judgment dated 12-5-1976 has declared 5 Bighas 7 Biswa irrigated area of the petitioner as surplus. In appeal, the same judgment appears to have been confirmed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority the petitioner has come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have acted illegally in ignoring partition decree between the petitioner and his son which indicates that the petitioner has only l/7th share in the disputed land since his all sons are major sons, if only the share of the petitioner in the disputed land is taken into account, there would be no surplus area with the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and he has submitted that the findings recorded by the Ceiling Authorities are based on appraisal of evidence on record and the petitioner has failed to show that his sons were co-tenants of the land and the Ceiling Authorities were fully justified in treating the land as it belonged to the petitioner exclusively. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 5 Explanation 2 as well as the provisions of Section 5 (7) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He has stressed that the partition decree in his favour was prior to 24-1-1971. Hence the Ceiling Authorities have patently erred in ignoring the partition decree and treating the land as exclusive property of the petitioner. 5. It is noteworthy that the disputed land is occupancy tenancy and the petitioners sons were not originally co-tenants of the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the tenant as well as the landlord had accepted the petitioners sons as co-tenants hence they acquired co-tenancy rights along with the petitioner in the eye of law in accordance with Section 33 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the tenant as well as the landlord had accepted the petitioners sons as co-tenants hence they acquired co-tenancy rights along with the petitioner in the eye of law in accordance with Section 33 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Added to this, the claim of the sons of the petitioner has been recognised in a partition decree, hence the Ceiling Authorities have patently erred in not recognising the claim of the sons in the disputed area and that the disputed area was wrongly shown as exclusive property of the petitioner. 6. Section 33 proviso of U. P. Tenancy Act reads as below: "Provided that no person shall be deemed to be a co-tenant, notwithstanding that he may have shared in the cultivation of holding, unless he was a co-tenant from the commencement of the tenancy, or has become such by succession or has been specifically recognised as such in writing by the land holder." 7. According to the aforesaid provision one can be a tenure-holder only when he is specifically recognised as such in writing by the land holder. The petitioner has relied upon a written statement alleged to have been filed by the then Zamindar in a proceeding before the Tahsildar and he has contended that his sons were recognised as co-tenants of the land and they should be treated as such. 8. The learned counsel for the State has emphasised that the so-called admission of the right of the petitioners sons in miscellaneous proceedings cannot confer any right upon the sons of the petitioner. He has invited my attention to the ruling reported in 1973 All WR (HC) 279 : (1973 All LJ 312). 9. I have perused the written statement filed on behalf of the Zamindar in the miscellaneous proceeding and I am not satisfied that the petitioners sons were specifically recognised as co-tenants by the land holder through the aforesaid written statement. It is not clear that the Ziladar (Pairokar) had right on behalf of the Government-Estate to accept persons as co-tenure holders. According to the ruling relied upon by the State, any admission in correction of papers case does not confer any valid title upon a person and the admission as well as the finding based thereon cannot be binding in a regular suit. 10. According to the ruling relied upon by the State, any admission in correction of papers case does not confer any valid title upon a person and the admission as well as the finding based thereon cannot be binding in a regular suit. 10. In the present case the Ceiling Authorities have not given effect to the partition decree recognising the claim of the petitioners sons, I think that their judgments cannot be characterised as perverse or without any basis in evidence. They rightly ignored the partition decree as the petitioners sons were not co-tenants of the disputed land in the eye of law. 11. As regards the petitioners claim that the provisions of Section 5 (7) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are not attracted to the facts of this case, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the partition relied upon by the petitioner was prior to 24th day of Jan., 1971, hence the provisions were not at all attracted. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a ruling reported in 1976 All WC 391, State of U. P. v. Madho Kumar Swarup and he has contended that the partition decree recognising the claim of the petitioners sons would at best be a voidable decree and the Ceiling Authorities could not ignore the partition decree while determining the ceiling area of the petitioner. I have examined the aforesaid ruling and I find that the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid ruling the State and Gaon Sabha were parties to the partition suit whereas in the present case the State is not a party to the partition decree relied upon by the petitioner. In view of the provisions of Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act, the partition decree could be ignored by the Ceiling Authorities. Section 38-B of the aforesaid Act reads thus : - "No finding or decision given before the commencement of this section in any proceeding or on any issue (including any order decree or judgment) 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." 13. In the present case, I am also inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Ceiling Act is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Since the names of the petitioners sons were recorded in revenue papers before 24-1-1971, the aforesaid Explanation 2 would not be attracted to the claim of the petitioner. 14. As I have indicated above that I am not satisfied that the petitioners sons were validly co-opted as co-tenure-holders of the disputed area, I think that the provisions of Section 5, Explanation 1 are attracted and the Ceiling Authorities were fully justified in holding that the petitioner was exclusive tenure-holder of the disputed area and even if the names of the petitioners sons were recorded over the disputed area in pursuance of the miscellaneous proceeding of the year 1968, the sons would not become co-tenants of the land under consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged that the finding recorded by the Ceiling Authorities that the tenure-holder continues in possession is not based on any evidence. Even for the sake of argument it may be assumed that the petitioners sons continue in possession over some portion of the disputed area, that would not make them as co-tenure holders. The original tenancy is in the name of the petitioner and in the circumstances of the present case the Ceiling Authorities have treated the partition proceeding as collusive and as I have indicated above that the petitioners sons were not validly co-opted co-tenants of the disputed land, I think that the Ceiling Authorities were fully justified in treating the disputed area as exclusive land of the petitioner. 15. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.