ORDER N.N. Sharma, J. - This petition is directed against. order dated 4-2-1980 recorded in Revenue Ceiling Appeals Nos. 11 and 12 of 1979 (Annexures-Ill and IV) and part of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority Dated 6-2-1979 which are sought to be quashed. There was a prayer for ordering the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus area of the tenure-holder after classification of land into irrigated or unirrigated in accordance with the requirement of S. 4-A of the Act. 2. It appears that respondent Ashok Kumar, Sheo Kumar and Satish Kumar are minor sons of Chandra Pal, respondent No. 3. Notice under S. 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961 as amended up to date) was issued to Chandra Pal by Prescribed Authority Mat, district Mathura, respondent No. 2 who was required to submit objection, if any, against the ceiling statement accompanied with the notice. Chandra Pal filed objection against the ceiling statement. Copy of the objection is annex. 1 to the writ petition. 3. The Prescribed Authority held 1.12 acres area as surplus vide order dated 6-2-1979 (Annex.-2). 4. Tenure-holder as well as the State preferred appeals against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. The appeal filed by tenure-holder (Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 11 of 1979) was allowed with costs while Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1979, filed by the U.P. State, was dismissed with costs. Both these judgments are annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. 5. State has filed this petition against respondents including the appellate authority, who is respondent No. 1. 6. It was maintained that learned appellate authority as well as the Prescribed Authority erred in holding the plots Nos. 904 M area 0.49 acre and 1286 measuring 0.11 acre as unirrigated. 7. It was further maintained that the appellate authority erred in excluding this area from the holding of Chandra Pal and thus the writ petition was filed with the aforesaid prayer. 8. I have heard Sri P. K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-petitioner and Sri G. N. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents. 9. Sri P. K. Misra, learned Advocate for State could not successfully assail the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below about the area of plot Nos. 904 and 1286 being unirrigated. 8. I have heard Sri P. K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-petitioner and Sri G. N. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents. 9. Sri P. K. Misra, learned Advocate for State could not successfully assail the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below about the area of plot Nos. 904 and 1286 being unirrigated. Such finding of fact, which seems to be correct on this point. does not require any interference. 10. The main point which was pressed before inc on behalf of State was about exclusion of plots Nos. 904 M measuring 15.59 acres and 1286 measuring 0.11 acre from the holding of the tenure-holder. This area is situated in village Naujhil Bangar, Pargana Mat, district Mathura. It appears that this area originally belonged to one Sri Nathi, who happened to be the maternal grandfather of respondents 4 to 6, respondents 4 to 6 inherited the property as daughter's sons of Nathi. Annex.-5, copy of Khatauni 1386 F to 1391 F. goes to disclose the names of tenure-holders respondents 3 to 6. Respondents 4 to 6 were shown as minors under the guardianship of their mother Smt. Kamla Devi. Their ages were given as Ashok Kumar 15 years, Salesh Kumar 13 years and Sheo Kumar 4 years. Plot Nos. 1286 and 904 M were shown as tenure of Chandra Pal. 11. It appears that this area was not included in the holding of tenure-holder by the appellate authority on the ground that the relevant date for determining the surplus land was 8th June, 1973. The Khatauni disclosed that Chandra Pal and members of his family became Bhumidhars of these plots from 1384 F. and under such circumstances, this area was not included for working out the surplus land. He further observed that the extract of Khasra 1378 to 1380 did not show the possession of Chandra Pal etc. over this plot. 12. Thus, the exclusion of this plot was assailed before me on the ground that family of Chandra Pal, as a unit was to be taken as tenure-holder. Minor sons of Chandra Pal could not be treated as tenure-holders. over this plot. 12. Thus, the exclusion of this plot was assailed before me on the ground that family of Chandra Pal, as a unit was to be taken as tenure-holder. Minor sons of Chandra Pal could not be treated as tenure-holders. S. 3(7) defines the family in following terms : "'family' in relation to a tenure-holder ' means himself, or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters)." 13. S. 3 (17) defines the 'tenure-holder' in following terms : "'tenure-holder' means a person who is the holder of a holding, but (except in Chapter 111) does not include : (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder: (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder." 14. Thus, when the definition of 'family' as well as of 'tenure-holder' are read together, it shall go to disclose that minor sons of Chandra Pal could not be the tenure-holders in a family headed by Chandra Pal. In this connection, it was pointed out that a bare look at S. 5 (3) of the said Act would go to disclose that family of Chandra Pal was to be taken as a unit for calculating the surplus area of Chandra Pal. S. 5 (3)(a) is worded as below : "In the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family) plus two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates to two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land." 15. Learned Standing Counsel further relied upon S. 29 of the aforesaid Act which is recorded as below : "29. Learned Standing Counsel further relied upon S. 29 of the aforesaid Act which is recorded as below : "29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land - Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 : (a) any land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under a decree or order of any court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him, or (b) any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grove-land loses its character as grove-land or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the categories exempted, the ceiling area shall be liable to be redetermined (and accordingly the provisions of this Act, except section 16, shall mutatis mutandis apply.)." Thus his contention was that any acquisition of the area by Chandra Pal or any of his family members justified the re-determination of the surplus area and clubbing of the land. 16. Sri. G. N. Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondents pointed out that the definition of 'tenure-holder' as well as the language of S. 29 makes it abundantly clear that it contemplates the holding of a tenure-holder as well as succession or acquisition of the land by him and not by member of his family and so there is absolutely no ground to club the area of minor sons of Chandra Pal with his holding. 17. Sri G. N. Sharma further maintained that Ashok Kumar was adult and not minor according to the counter-affidavit. 18. I have carefully considered all these contentions. So far as the affidavit of Chandra Pal alleging Ashok Kumar as major is concerned, there is the rejoinder-affidavit of Sri P. C. Kulshreshta, Naib Tahsildar (Ceiling), Mathura which shows that affidavit of Chandra Pal on this point was incorrect. Ashok Kumar was only aged 15 years in 1386 Fasli. This assertion of Sri P. C. Kulshreshta finds a material support from the Khataunit entry annexure-5. Sri. Ashok Kumar was only aged 15 years in 1386 Fasli. This assertion of Sri P. C. Kulshreshta finds a material support from the Khataunit entry annexure-5. Sri. P. C. Kulshresta had no motive to perjure and was acting in the discharge of his official duty while Chandra Pal had every motive to save his land from the clutches of the aforesaid Act and under such circumstances, it must be held that Ashok Kumar was minor aged about 15 years in 1386 Fasli (1978-79). 19. As regards the contention of learned Standing Counsel that the family has to be treated as a unit under the Act to work out the ceiling area, reliance was placed upon State of U.P. v. Smt. Vidya Wati, reported in 1973 All LJ 178 which posited (at p. 179) : "If a person has a family consisting of himself and relations mentioned in clause I c) of S. 3 of the Act, then the family as a unit is deemed by the Act to be the tenure-holder for purposes of Sections 4 and 5. If a person is a member of a joint family with his son or son's son, the son or son's son, will not be the tenure-holder in his own separate right unless either of the two conditions mentioned in the explanation is satisfied, viz, either the son or son's son is recorded separately or their separate share has been declared prior to 20th day of August, 1959, either by a family settlement or by a decree of a Court etc. as mentioned in the explanation (Para 5)." 20. On the point of clubbing the area of wife's land, there is another authority reported in Prem Ballabh Belwal v. Prescribed Authority, 1979 All LJ 335 which posited : "Under S. 5 (1) of the Act no tenure-holder is allowed to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. When the husband is the tenure-holder and is being proceeded against in view of S. 5 (1) of the Act, his wife has no separate identity as a tenure-holder. In this view of the matter it is wholly immaterial that the wife's land is not even 'holding' under the ceiling law. When the husband is the tenure-holder and is being proceeded against in view of S. 5 (1) of the Act, his wife has no separate identity as a tenure-holder. In this view of the matter it is wholly immaterial that the wife's land is not even 'holding' under the ceiling law. Irrespective of whether such land is 'holding' or not, the wife has not independent status as a 'tenure-holder because she is not the 'tenure-holder' in the presence of the husband. Now S. 5 (1) of the Act uses the expression 'land' in excess of the ceiling area, significantly the word 'holding' is not used here but even if the word 'holding' were used here, it would have been immaterial because so far as the husband tenure-holder is concerned, his holding will not include any land held by the wife. The wife's land whether it be a 'holding' under the ceiling law or not. cannot be said to be a 'holding' of the husband. If it is land and as such is covered by the ceiling law, then the clubbing will be done despite the fact that such land did no, amount to a holding in the hands of the wife." 21. A perusal of S. 29 of the aforesaid Act shall go to disclose that under this enactment the imposition of ceiling is a continuous process and that the authorities have to ensure that at no point of time a tenure-holder has in his possession more area than prescribed under the Act. It does not appeal to commonsense that the minor sons are not included in the family. S. 29 of the aforesaid Act would apply to all cases of acquisition of property whether by judgment or decree, order, succession or transfer or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession by any member of family of. tenure-holder. So the learned appellate authority erred in holding that plots Nos. 1286 and 904 were liable to exclusion as the name of Chandra Pal and family as Bhumidhar was not recorded in Khasra on relevant date i.e. 8-6-1973. 22. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed to the extent that the judgment of appellate authority in Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 11 of 1979 partly and Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1979 wholly, are quashed. 22. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed to the extent that the judgment of appellate authority in Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 11 of 1979 partly and Revenue Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1979 wholly, are quashed. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority, Math, Mathura for redetermination of the ceiling area of respondents 3 to 6 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Costs easy.