ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -These two connected writ petitions arise out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. They are directed against a common order of the Proscribed Authority and a common order of the appellate authority. 2. The facts in brief, are these: 3. Chaman Singh, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2625 of 1977, was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 21-6-1976, a true copy whereof is annexure No. F to the aforesaid writ petition No. 2625 of 1977. Thereafter an appeal was filed by Chaman Singh petitioner and the same was allowed in part by the appellate court by its judgment dated 27-4-1977, a certified copy whereof is on the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2625 of 1977. 4. Now Chaman Singh has come up in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2625 of 1977, while his two sons Rakesh and Kushalpal have come up in connected writ petition No. 34446 of 1977. In support thereof, I have heard Sri S. S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Shantanu Kumar v. State (1979 All WC 585), these writ petitions are entitled to succeed. The Full Bench has laid down that the notice under the First Proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act is mandatory and where no such notice has been issued to the alleged ostensibly recorded tenure-holder the proceedings are void and without jurisdiction. 6. Now in the instant case in para 18 of civil misc. writ petition No. 2625 of 1977, it has been stated as under:- "That the opposite parties 2 and 3 had committed a manifest error of law in not issuing any notice to the recorded tenure-holders, Rakesh and Kushalpal whose names are even recorded in the Ceiling Forms 3 and 4" 7. In para 20 of the said writ petition it has been stated as under:- "That the Ceiling Authorities had never issued any notice to the recorded tenure-holders, Rakesh and Kushalpal." 8. In para 20 of the said writ petition it has been stated as under:- "That the Ceiling Authorities had never issued any notice to the recorded tenure-holders, Rakesh and Kushalpal." 8. In ground No. 2 of the grounds of the said petition it has been stated as under:- "Because the opposite parties 2 and 3 had also committed an illegality in not issuing any notice to the recorded tenure-holders of the land whose names were entered in the C. L. H. Forms 3 and thus acted against the provisions of Rule & of the Rules framed under the U P. Act. 1 of 1961". 9. In para 19 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the said petition it is stated as follows:- "That with regard to the contents of para 21 of the writ petition it is stated that plot No. 485, has been accepted as: grove land". 10. It will thus be seen that it has not been disputed by Chaman Singh petitioner that his two sons Rakesh and Kushalpal were minors on the relevant date, i. e., 8-6-1973. In his statement (a true copy whereof is annexure 'B to writ petition No. 2625 of 1977), the petitioner Chaman Singh asserted that Rakesh was then a major. However, the statement was made in the year 1976. The same is the position regarding the statements of other witnesses, examined before the Prescribed Authority. On behalf of Chaman Singh petitioner in his-objections (a true copy whereof is annexure no. 'A to writ petition No. 2625 of 1977) dated 10-4-1976 it was claimed by the petitioner Chaman Singh that Rakesh then was major. However, it was not claimed that he was major also on the relevant date i. e., 8-6-1973. Before the lower appellate court also it was never claimed that the two sons were major on 8-6-1973. Para 2 of the judgment of the appellate court it has been stated as under:- "Rakesh and Kushalpal are the minor sons of the appellant. These sons possessed land to the extent of 37 bighas and 14 biswas. This land has been clubbed in the holding of the appellant as both these sons were minors. Para 2 of the judgment of the appellate court it has been stated as under:- "Rakesh and Kushalpal are the minor sons of the appellant. These sons possessed land to the extent of 37 bighas and 14 biswas. This land has been clubbed in the holding of the appellant as both these sons were minors. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that before clubbing the said area of the minor sons in the holding of the appellant notice under Rule 8, of the rules framed under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules should have been issued to these minors, who were under the guardianship of their mother. This contention is devoid of substance. The land of these two sons was clubbed in the holding of the appellant only on the ground that these sons being the minor sons were members of the family of the tenure-holder. In my opinion notice under Rule 8 was not at all necessary". 11. It should be seen that in connected writ petition No. 3446 of 1977, the said, two 50ns Rakesh and Kushalpal have filed the petition describing themselves to be the minor sons of Chaman Singh under the guardianship of their mother Smt. Shimla Devi. 12. Accordingly, it seems to me that I can decide both these connected writ petitions on the basis that on the relevant date, i.e. 8-6-1973 both Rakesh and Kushalpal, the two sons of the petitioner-, were minors. Even if the land stood recorded in their names on the said date, they were not entitled to receive any notice under the First proviso to R. 8 because they could not under the Ceiling law be treated as tenure-holders of such land in view of the definition of the 'tenure-holder in Section 3 (17) of the Act. It is well known that the land of a minor son is liable to be clubbed with the land of his father, who is treated as the tenure-holder under the Act. In my view, the notice under the First proviso to Rule 8 is not called for in the case of an admittedly minor son. The notice under the First proviso to Rule 8 is given where the States contention is that same land is ostensibly held by someone as the recorded tenure-holder though it belongs to some other person as a real tenure-holder of such land. The notice under the First proviso to Rule 8 is given where the States contention is that same land is ostensibly held by someone as the recorded tenure-holder though it belongs to some other person as a real tenure-holder of such land. In the case of a minor son there is no question of ostensible recording because whether he is ostensibly recorded or whether he is recorded in reality, he cannot himself be a tenure-holder and his land is liable to be clubbed with the holding of his father irrespective of any question about the ostensible and real recording in the name of the minor on. However, where there is a dispute whether the recorded tenure-holder is a major or minor son of his father, then I think such a notice should be issued under the First proviso so that the recorded tenure-holder may substantiate his contention that he was major on the relevant date. However, in the facts of the instant case, in my view, no notice was necessary to be sent to Rakesh and Kushalpal as they were not claimed to be major on 8-6-1973. 13. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.