ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these :- The petitioners are the sons of the late Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma, who was treated as the tenure-holder and to whom the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued. Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 10-7-1976, a true copy whereof is annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed by said Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 16-1-1978, a true copy whereof is annexure 7 to the petition. 3. Now the petitioners, who are the sons of Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma, have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. B. Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition, learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. It seems that Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court and thereafter the petitioners were substituted in his place as the legal representatives of the deceased tenure-holder. Therefore, they have filed this petition as such legal representatives of the deceased tenure-holder. 5. Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the deceased tenure-holder Sfii Chaturbhuj Sharma was in any case entitled to the benefit of two hectares of additional irrigated land on account of his son Surya Dutta Sharma, who is petitioner No. 3, before me. This contention was raised before the appellate court and the said court rejected it in these words:- "It is next contended that Sri Surya Dutta Sharma and Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma did not hold any land of their own and, therefore, they were entitled to additional land. The learned Prescribed Authority has found that Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma held 1.82 acres land in his own name. It is contended that they did not hold any land of their own. The learned Prescribed Authority has found that Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma held 1.82 acres land in his own name. It is contended that they did not hold any land of their own. In this connection it has to be pointed out that Sri Surya Dutta Sharma obviously held the land given to him by the tenure-holder by gift deed dated 19-1-1971 in addition to the land given to its minor daughters by gift deed executed by Madan Lal which would also be deemed to be his own land as his daughter still exists unmarried. The tenure holder was, therefore, not entitled to any additional land on account of his major son Surya Dutta Sharma." 6. This ground is undoubtedly wrong. The appellate court was wrong in stating that the gift deed which Madan Lal had executed was executed in favour of the unmarried daughter of Surya Dutta Sharma. From the record it is obvious that the said gift deed was executed in favour of Km. Rekha and Km. Sheela. Km. Rekha is admittedly the daughter of petitioner No. l Sri Manik Chandra Sharma and Km. Sheela is the daughter of Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma, petitioner No. 2. The appellate court, therefore, was wrong in thinking that said Sri Madan Lal had made any gift in favour of any daughter of petitioner No. 3 Sri Surya Dutta Sharma. 7. The other reason given by the appellate court is also wrong. The gift deed dated 19-1-1971 executed by the deceased tenure-holder Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma in favour of his son Sri Surya Dutta Sharma, petitioner No. 3, was ignored by the authorities below on the ground that the deceased tenure-holder Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma was himself in cultivators possession of the gifted land and presumably because of the application of Explanation II to Section 5 (1) of the Act. In this Situation, it was not open to the authorities below to treat Sri Surya Dutta Sharma as the holder of the land which had been gifted in his favour by his father. When the father was treated as the real tenure-holder then obviously the land was held by the father and not by the son. In this Situation, it was not open to the authorities below to treat Sri Surya Dutta Sharma as the holder of the land which had been gifted in his favour by his father. When the father was treated as the real tenure-holder then obviously the land was held by the father and not by the son. In this view of the matter, the tenure-holder deceased Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma was entitled to the benefit of two additional hectares of irrigated land in respect of his son Sri Surya Dutta Sharma, petitioner No. 3, and this benefit was wrongly denied by the authorities below to the said tenure-holder. 8. Learned counsel next contended that to respect of Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma, who is also an adult son of the deceased tenure-holder Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma and is petitioner No. 2 in the petition, the benefit of two hectares of additional irrigated land was wrongly denied by the authorities below. In respect of Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma the lower appellate court has observed: "As far as Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma is concerned, it may be mentioned that the land given to his daughter Ku. Sheela Sharma would have to be included in his name and would be deemed his holding within the definition of the family given under the Act. On this score also the tenure holder was not entitled to any additional benefit." The appellate court earlier observed: "The learned Prescribed Authority has found that Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma held 1.82 acres land in his own name." 9. Sri R. B. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before me that this statement is absolutely wrong and he wanted the entire record to be summoned for the said purpose with a view to establish that no land whatsoever was held by Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma. The Prescribed Authority has spoken of some personal file and the said learned Counsel stated that there was no such personal file. I have rejected the said prayer because in my view such exercises have to be done by the authorities below with a view to find out whether the said statement is really borne out from the record. So far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, I do not think that the appellate court was right in holding that the land which had been gifted to Km. So far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, I do not think that the appellate court was right in holding that the land which had been gifted to Km. Sheela Sharma could be taken into consideration while deciding whether Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma as an adult son of the tenure-holder holds less than two hectares of irrigated land. In my decision reported in Prem Ballabh Belwal v. Prescribed Authority (1979 All LJ 335) I took the view that in Section 5 (3) (a) & (b) the expression 'land held by other members of his family should not be interpreted as meaning the land in the nature of a holding as defined in Section 3 (9) of the Act. I held that even the land which was not in the nature of a holding but was held by a member of the family was liable to be clubbed with the holding of the tenure-holder. Applying the same approach to the instant controversy, I should hold that the expression 'land held by an adult son has no reference to the definition of holding in Section 3 (9). Here it should also be emphasised that it is not the son who is being proceeded against as a tenure-holder. The tenure-holder was Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma and he is being granted benefit in respect of an adult son. The land held by members of the family of adult son, in my opinion, has no relevance to the controversy. In this view of the matter, the fact that some land was held by the minor daughter of said adult son Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma and that such minor daughter would be held to be a member of the family of Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma, seems to be not relevant at all. As I have felt that it is not very clear as to what was the real situation in respect of the land held by Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma, I think that while I should allow this petition. I should remand this case to the appellate court for re-examination of the said aspect of the matter. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. I should remand this case to the appellate court for re-examination of the said aspect of the matter. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The judgment of the appellate court dated 16-1-1978 is hereby quashed and the case is remanded to the appellate court with a direction that the benefit of two hectares of irrigated land shall be given to the deceased tenure-holder Sri Chaturbhuj Sharma in respect of his adult scar Sri Surya Dutta Sharma, petitioner No. 3. The benefit in respect of the other adult son Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma, petitioner No. 2, shall also be given after deducting any land which he might hold. However, in deciding the extent of the land held by Sri Vishnu Dutta Sharma, any land held by his minor daughter or any other member of his family shall not be taken into consideration. Thereafter the appellate court will decide whether the notice under Section 10 (2) should stand discharged or there still remains some surplus land to be declared as such. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.