ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. -This petition is directed against orders passed by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 dismissing application filed by petitioner under Section 11 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The land in dispute in respect of which objection was filed was recorded in the name of Dalip Singh his father. The C.L.H. form, was therefore, prepared in his name who filed objection under Section 10 (2) and claimed that petitioner was major son who was a tenure-holder in his own right, therefore his land should not be clubbed with his land while determining the ceiling area. This was not accepted and the matter is pending in another writ petition filed by Dalip Singh. In 1978, the above noted application was filed by petitioner. It was accompanied by an affidavit in which it was stated that he did not have any knowledge of these proceedings and the land in dispute was given to petitioner in a family settlement as far back as 1965, which was recognised even by consolidation authorities. He was tenure-holder of it and the ceiling authorities committed an error in not issuing any notice as required under Rule 8. His application was dismissed by the prescribed Authority on the ground that the order passed by ceiling authorities against his father having become final, this application was not maintainable particularly when he was held to be minor. In appeal the District Judge held that as petitioner had knowledge of these proceedings his application was barred by time, r or knowledge he relied on two circumstances one that a medical certificate was tiled by Dalip Singh in the other case and as petitioner must have been produced before the Doctor he must have come to know that the certificate is being obtained for ceiling proceedings. The other circumstances according to him was that he too is a grown up son. It is not probable that he must not have come to know about these proceedings which are pending since 1965. None of the circumstances on which reliance has been placed can be considered to be relevant admits of no doubt. There was no evidence from which this inference could be drawn. He has assumed things for which there was absolutely no material. None of the circumstances on which reliance has been placed can be considered to be relevant admits of no doubt. There was no evidence from which this inference could be drawn. He has assumed things for which there was absolutely no material. The mere fact that petitioner was produced before a Doctor does not necessarily mean that he came to know of pendency of ceiling proceedings. Apart from it he filed an affidavit before the prescribed Authority that he was not aware of these proceedings which was not controverted on behalf of the opposite-parties. This affidavit was not disbelieved by the District Judge. His finding, is therefore, based not only on assumption but by ignoring material evidence consisting of the affidavit. 2. As regards the orders passed by the prescribed Authority suffice it to say that a finding recorded in objection filed by Dalip Singh did not bind the petitioner nor was he debarred from moving an application under Section 11 (2). It may be as has been argued by the State Counsel that a minor son is not a tenure-holder but the first question to be decided was whether the petitioner was minor. The argument of the State Counsel that since he was held minor in proceedings initiated against Dalip Singh he shall be deemed to be bound by the decision does not carry conviction. It has not been found that the petitioner was not a tenure-holder. He was, therefore, entitled to file objection and could claim adjudication that he was a minor or not, The finding recorded in case of Dalip Singh would not operate as res-judicata nor he could be be-barred from raising this controversy. 3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the District Judge and prescribed Authority are quashed, The prescribed Authority is further directed to permit the petitioner to lead evidence and decide the objection in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.