ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was treated as the tenure-holder and the notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act was issued to him. He filed objections and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 31-10-1974. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in this court and the same was allowed by a learned judge of this court by his order dated 19th April, 1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 7 to the petition. The case was remanded to the appellate court to be decided in accordance with the directions given in the said order. Thereafter, the appellate court reheard the matter and decided the appeal vide its judgment dated 20th August, 1980, a certified copy of which is on the record as Annexure 1 to the petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner now has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the minor sons of the petitioner were tenure-holders in their own rights, independently of the petitioner as they had inherited their lands from their maternal grand-father in some such manner as had no relation with the lands of their father, namely, the petitioner. In my view this contention cannot be accepted. section 3(17) of the Act defines `tenure-holder' in such a manner that if a minor son's father is himself a tenure holder, then the minor son cannot be the tenure-holder under the Ceiling Law. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel is unsustainable. Further, it should be seen that this point stood already decided by the aforesaid judgment dated 19th April, 1978 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly, it was not open to the petitioner to raise this contention at any subsequent stage. 5. The petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no orders as to costs.