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 petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the III Additional District Judge, Nainital. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri J. C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Only one contention is involved in this petition. The learned counsel contended that the land, which stood in the name of the petitioner's wife Smt. Basanti Devi and of which she was an (sic) the Asami of a class not covered by Section 3 (9) of the Act, could not be included in the holding of the petitioner. He placed reliance on the definition of the expression "holding" contained in Section 3 (9) reproduced below: - "holding means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sub-lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease". The petitioner has asserted in Para 6 of the petition: "That Smt. Basanti Devi also filed an objection stating that she is an asami, and it is admitted case of the parties that Smt. Basanti Devi is not asami of the Gaon Sabha or of a class mentioned in Section 11 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act." 3. The said allegation has not been denied in the counter-affidavit and, therefore, it can be reasonably held that Smt. Basanti Devi is not an Asami of the Gaon Sabha and is also not an Asami under Section 11 of the U. P. Act. No. 1 of 1951. Therefore, it follows that the plots in her name, of which she is the Asami, will not be deemed to be "holding under Section 3 (9) of the Act. No. 1 of 1951. Therefore, it follows that the plots in her name, of which she is the Asami, will not be deemed to be "holding under Section 3 (9) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel contended that as Smt. Basanti Devi did not have any holding therefore, her land cannot be clubbed with that of the petitioner, who is the husband of Smt. Basanti Devi. To decide this controversy it seems that it will be necessary to consider certain other provisions in the Act. In Section 3 (7) of the Act family has been defined thus: " 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)". 4. Surplus Land has been defined to Section 3 (16) of the Act as follows: " "Surplus Land' means land held by tenure-holder in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him and includes any buildings, wells, and trees existing thereon." 5. Tenure holder has been defined to Section 3 (17) of the Act as under: " tenure-holder means a person who is the holder of a holding but, (except in Chapter HI), 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. We are not here concerned with Chapter III, Section 5 (1) is as follows: - "5. Imposition of ceiling. We are not here concerned with Chapter III, Section 5 (1) is as follows: - "5. Imposition of ceiling. - (1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate, throughout Uttar Pradeseh any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him." Section 5 (3) (a) and (b) are as follows: "(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7), the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be - (a) in the case of tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), plus two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land; (b) in the case of a tenure-holder having a family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the members exceeding five and tor each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult son aggregates to two hectares, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land." 7. Now the scheme of the Act is that under Section 5 (1) of the Act no tenure-holder is allowed to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The petitioner was the tenure-holder of the plots held by him. So far as Smt. Basanti Devi, the wife was concerned, she did not have any "holding under the ceiling law, but even if she had held a "holding under the ceiling law, still, she could not be an independent tenure-holder in view of Section 3 (17) (a) which clearly lays down that a woman, whose husband is a tenure-holder cannot herself be a tenure-holder. Therefore, when the husband is the tenure-holder and is being proceeded against in view of Section 5 (1) of the Act, his wife has no separate identity as a tenure-holder. In this view of the matter it is wholly immaterial that the wifes land is not even holding under the ceiling law, irrespective of whether such land is holding or not, the wife has no independent status as a tenure-holder because she is not the tenure-holder in the presence of her husband. Now Sec. 5 (1) of the Act uses the expression "land in excess of the ceiling area; significantly the word holding is not used here but even if the word holding were used here, it would have been immaterial because so tar as the husband tenure-holder is concerned, his holding will not include any land held by the wife. The wifes land whether it be a holding under the ceiling law or not, cannot be said to be a holding* of the husband. However, if the word "holding had been used in Section 5 (1) of the Act then it would have been not possible for the scheme of the Act to be fulfilled which enables the wifes land to be clubbed along with the husband's holding. If the word holding were used to place of "land in Section 5 (1) of the Act, then the husband could certainly contend that he was not having any holding in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the ground that his wife had certain land in her name. In other words, he could insist that his own holding could alone be taken into consideration for determination of the ceiling area and not any land held by the wife in her own name. However, as the scheme of the ceiling law is that the land held by the wife should also he clubbed with the land held by the husband while determining ceiling area, therefore, purposely the word land was used by Sec. 5 (1) of the Act and not the word holding. Under Section 5 (3) again in Cls. (a) and (b) it is clearly stated that the ceiling area for the purposes of sub-sec. (1) shall be (a) in the ease of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7-30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family). Under Section 5 (3) again in Cls. (a) and (b) it is clearly stated that the ceiling area for the purposes of sub-sec. (1) shall be (a) in the ease of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7-30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family). This provision enables the clubbing of the land held by the other members of the family along with the husbands holding. The wife undoubtedly is a member of the family. She undoubtedly holds land of which she is an Asami. The word holding has not been used in clauses (a) and (b) and, therefore, when the husband is a tenure-holder, which means that he is the holder of a holding as defined in the Act then it is not necessary that his wifes land should also amount to be a holding' under the Act before the same is to be included under Section 5 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act. Even if she is not the holder of a holding under the Act but if she holds land then her land is bound to be included under sec. 5 (3) (a) and (b). Section 3 (9) of the Act, which defines holding and in the said definition only certain classes of Asamis are included, will have significance in the case of an unmarried woman, who may be an Asami such as Smt. Basanti Devi in the instant case happens to be. If Smt. Basanti Devi was not married in the instant case, then if the ceiling authorities wanted to proceed against her as an independent tenure-holder, she could certainly contend that she was not a tenure-holder as she did not hold any holding under the Act, and therefore, she was not covered within the scope of Section 5 (1) of the Act which applies to the tenure-holders. However, when the woman is married, in my view the definition of holding loses its significance because so far as the liability of plots held by her to be included under Section 5 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act is concerned, it is not material that the land in her hand did not amount to be a holding under the Act. If it is land and it is not disputed that in the 1979 All. If it is land and it is not disputed that in the 1979 All. L.J./22 III (1) instant case it was land such as is covered by the ceiling law, then the clubbing will be done despite the fact that such land did not amount to a holding in the hands oi the wife. 8. This petition accordingly lacks merit and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.