JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member. - In this second appeal filed by the State of U.P. the only point, which requires decision is whether a mother who has remarried, will inherit the son under section 171 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. It would be relevant to have in mind the background against which this question has arisen Smt. Nagarewali filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. alleging that she is mother of Ramdeen son of Halku, that Ramdeen was sirdar of the land in suit and on his death the plaintiff, Smt. Nagarewali, inherited the disputed plot as heir of Ramdeen deceased. This suit was contested by the State of U.P. on the ground that the plaintiff though she is mother of Ramdeen deceased, had remarried and, therefore, she was not heir of Ramdeed under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Shri Vijay Bhadur learned Additional S.D.O. Lalitpur on 31.3.1978. Against that judgment the plaintiff Smt. Nagarewali filed an appeal which succeeded and Smt. V.S. Trivadi learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, decreed the plaintiff's suit on 15.5.1978. The learned Additional Commissioner relied upon a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at page 109 of 1978 Revenue Judgment. The State of U.P. felt aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Commissioner and it had filed this second appeal. 3. According to section 171(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the widowed mother is an heir section 171(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act lays down "When a Bhumidhar or asami being a male, dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below: widow and widowed mother and widow of a predeceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who have not remarried". The learned counsel for the State has argued that the phrase "who have not remarried governs the widow, the widowed mother and widow of a predeceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent. The learned counsel for the State has argued that the phrase "who have not remarried governs the widow, the widowed mother and widow of a predeceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent. On this interpretation of this section, the widowed mother if she remarried, will be dis-entitled to inherit the property of her son, but in 1978 L.J., 109, three learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Unchastity of a mother is no bar to her succeeding as heir to her nor does remarriage constitute any such bar. After the remarriage the wife becomes an absolute partner and an integral part of her husband and the principle on which she is excluded from inheritance on marriage is that when she relinquishes her link with her husband even though he is dead and enters a new family, she is not entitled to retain the property inherited by her. The same, however, cannot be said of a mother. The mother is in an absolutely different position and that is why the Hindu Law did not provide that even the mother would be disinherited if she remarried". The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was against the order of the High Court and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of a disputed Khata. It is now apparent from a perusal of the ruling whether the dispute was regarding land governed by U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or by Hindu Law. A perusal of the ruling shows that the Supreme Court decided the matter as if Hindu Law was applicable to the case and it did not refer at all to U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or to section 171 of the Act. It is established law that as far as succession is concerned regarding land Hindu Law does not apply. There can be no dispute that section 171 (b) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act will be applicable. This section is clear that a woman inheriting land may be widow, or widowed mother or widow of a predeceased male lineal descendant but she was not entitled to inherit the land if she was remarried. Sub-section(k) of Section 171 is a good clue to the interpretation of sub-section (b) of this Section and sub-section (k) speaks of "father's mother, who has not remarried. Sub-section(k) of Section 171 is a good clue to the interpretation of sub-section (b) of this Section and sub-section (k) speaks of "father's mother, who has not remarried. There is no doubt that the legislature intended that a widow of the family, whether she be a widow of the last land holder, his widowed mother or widow or a predeceased male descendant or widow of his grandfather shall not inherit agricultural land under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act if she remarries. 4. The ruling of the Supreme Court, cited above does not show that Section 171 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was considered by it. It is established law that succession to agricultural land is governed by the provisions of section 171 to 174 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and that Hindu Law is not at all applicable to such land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not at all seized with this matter and it decided that case with reference to only Hindu Law. It means that the question of section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not involved in that decision and that ruling is not an authority on inheritance under section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In this view of the matter the learned Additional Commissioner was not right in relying upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in R.J. 1978, 109. 5. A perusal of section 171 (b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act shows that it has debarred every-widow of the family from inheriting agricultural land if that widow remarries after the death of her husband and it is immaterial whether the widow is the widow of the landholder or his widowed mother, or widow of a predeceased male lineal descendant. The section is clear that widowed mother if she remarried, after the death of her husband shall not inherit an agricultural land under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and this intentions of the legislature is further clarified by reference to section 171(k) which lays down that father's mother, who has remarried, will not inherit an agricultural land. The intention of the legislature was further clarified in section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The intention of the legislature was further clarified in section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. which laid down that "when a Bhumidhar or vesting, inherited an interest in any holding, as a widow of a male lineal descendant, mother or father's mother dies, marries, abandons, or surrenders such holdings or part thereof, the holding or part thereof shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir. A perusal of section 171 and 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act leaves us in no doubt that the legislature intended that a widow of the family, who remarried, was at the first instance not entitled to inherit the land if at that time she had already remarried, and if it so happen that she inherited the land in her capacity as a widow, but remarried afterwards she was disinherited from the agricultural land inherited by her earlier. 6. The result of the above discussion is that Hindu Law does not apply to agricultural land as far as succession is concerned and that succession is governed by sections 171 to 174 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The rulings, 1978 R.J. page 109 does not discuss sections 171 to 174 of the U.P.Z.P. & L.R. Act which means that it was deciding a case in which U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not applicable and that personal law (in that case Hindu Law) applied to the Circumstances of that case. In respect of a widow of a family, whether she be widow of the last landholder or his widowed mother or widow of a male lineal descendant of his family or widow of his grandfather, she was not entitled to inherit agricultural land if she had remarried. 7. Applying this principle to the present case, the plaintiff Smt. Nagarewali, though she was mother of the last landholder had already remarried another person and so she was not entitled to inherit the land under Section 171(b) of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. The judgment and order of the learned Additional Commissioner is defective on this point and it cannot be sustained. 8. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner and dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Costs easy.