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 : 3. The petitioner Gaya Singh was issued the notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by bis orders dated 26-10-1977, a true copy whereof is annexure 4 to the petition-Thereafter he filed an appeal and the same was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 16-8-1978, a true copy whereof is annexure 6 to the petition. 4. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof. I have heard Sri R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings had become final and there was no occasion for reopening the case. His point is that Section 13-A was not at all attracted to the facts of the instant case. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, it seems that the subsequent ceiling proceedings took place not under S. 13-A but on account of the amendment in the Ceiling Law by the U. P. Amending Act No. 2 of 1975- The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30-6-76 (annexure 3) clearly states that the subsequent ceiling proceedings were started by a fresh notice under S. 10 (2) as a result of the amending Act. The said order was set aside by the appellate court and the case was remanded and after the remand the Prescribed Authority passed the aforesaid order dated 26-10-77 (annexure 4). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the interpretation placed by the authorities below,on S. 5 (3) (a) and (b) is incorrect. It seems that the petitioner has four adult sons - Ranvir Singh, Jagvir Singh, Vishram Singh and Shiv Ratan Singh The controversy centres on the question as to the extent of benefit to which the petitioner is entitled in respect of the said four sons. It seems that the petitioner has four adult sons - Ranvir Singh, Jagvir Singh, Vishram Singh and Shiv Ratan Singh The controversy centres on the question as to the extent of benefit to which the petitioner is entitled in respect of the said four sons. In para 12 of the petition details have been set out showing the extent of the land held by each of the four sons and from the said details the petitioner has shown that in respect of Ranvir Singh he was entitled to the benefit of additional irrigated land to the extent of 1.68 acres in respect of Jagvir Singh he was entitled to the benefit of 4.70 acres; in respect of Vishram Singh he was entitled to the benefit of 4.30 acres and in respect of Shiv Ratan Singh he was entitled to the extent of 4.31 acres. The total comes to 14.99 acres of additional irrigated land. However, as under the aforesaid provision the maximum benefit for such additional land is confined to six hectares of irrigated land, therefore, the petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to 14.82 acres (equivalent to 6 hectares) in respect of the said four sons. The authorities below rejected the said claim and held that out of 14.82 acres (or six hectares) a deduction should be made to the extent of 4.77 acres which was the total land held by the four sons. Therefore, the benefit should be confined to 10.05 acres of irrigated land. In my view, the interpretation placed by the authorities below on S. 5 (3) (a) and (b) is incorrect. It should be seen that the scheme improvised by the aforesaid provision is that the tenure-holder should be entitled to the benefit of certain land in respect of each of his adult son. The maximum of such benefit in respect of each son is two hectares of irrigated land. However, if such son is himself a tenure-holder then out of such two hectares of irrigated land, the land held by such son shall be deducted and the tenure-holder is entitled to the benefit for the difference as additional irrigated land. Now in the instant case the figures clearly show that in respect of each of the four sons the tenure-holder was entitled to the benefit of certain additional land taking into consideration the land held by each of the four adult sons. Now in the instant case the figures clearly show that in respect of each of the four sons the tenure-holder was entitled to the benefit of certain additional land taking into consideration the land held by each of the four adult sons. Such total benefit as stated above, comes to 14-99 acres of irrigated land. However, as the maximum benefit is restricted to six hectares of irrigated land, therefore, the petitioner rightly claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of 14.82 acres which is equivalent to 6 hectares of irrigated land. The authorities below were not entitled to further deduct from 14.82 acres, the total land held by the four sons of the tenure-holder. In fact, the said figure of 14.99 acres had been arrived at after deducting the land held by each adult son and there was no justification for the deduction a second time which was done by the authorities below. The said authorities seem to be of the view that the scheme of the Act is that a tenure-holder, along with the members of his family and along with his adult sons, should not hold more than 7.30 hectares plus six hectares of irrigated land. This notion is undoubtedly wrong. The scheme is that the tenure-holder along with the members of his family should have 7.30 hectares as ceiling area and in addition, he should be entitled to the maximum benefit of six hectares of irrigated land in respect of the additional members in the family where the same exceed five and in respect of the adult sons. For each additional member of the family in excess of five and for each adult son of the tenure-holder the benefit allowed is two hectares of irrigated land. Where an adult son himself is a tenure-holder then from such two hectares of irrigated land the area of land held by him as a tenure-holder is to be deducted and the balance figure represents the extent of additional land to which the tenure-holder is entitled in respect of such adult son- The maximum benefit to which the tenure-holder is entitled is confined to six hectares of irrigated land. When the said figure-work has been done in the aforesaid manner, it is wholly irrelevant thereafter as to what is the extent of the land held by the adult sons. When the said figure-work has been done in the aforesaid manner, it is wholly irrelevant thereafter as to what is the extent of the land held by the adult sons. The extent of such land held by each adult son has undoubtedly a bearing at the initial stage when it comes to calculating the benefit of additional land to which the tenure-holder is entitled in respect of each such son. If the adult son holds more than two hectares of irrigated land, then the tenure-holder will not be entitled to any benefit in respect of each son but otherwise the extent of the land held by adult son will have no bearing apart from the said aspect of the matter. Therefore, in my view, the authorities below are misinterpreting the law which, according to the manner in which they have calculated the ceiling area and the surplus land, leads to the position that the tenure-holder, along with the members of his family and his adult sons is not entitled to have more than 13.30 hectares of irrigated land. This is not the scheme of the Act. 7. Accordingly, I allow this petition and quash the judgment of the appellate court in so far as the benefit in respect of four adult sons was confined only to 10.05 acres of irrigated land. The petitioner shall be given further benefit of 4.77 acres of irrigated land in addition to 10.05 acres of irrigated land to which he was held entitled in respect of his four adult sons by the authorities below. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that after further giving the benefit of 4-77 acres of irrigated land in addition to 10.05 acres of irrigated land, the necessary calculation shall be made and thereafter the ceiling area and the surplus land shall be redetermined. It is made clear that no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised before the Prescribed Authority hereafter. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.