ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. The usual ceiling proceedings took place and some land has been declared as surplus. The order became final with the verdict of the appellate court. However, the petitioner has now come up in the instant writ petition against the said orders and in support of the same, I have heard Sri N. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel raised a new contention, namely that the ceiling law is bad in so far as it provides for the clubbing of the land held by the minor son with the land of his parent. It should be seen that the definition of the `family' in S. 3(7) in the Act is such that it includes the minor sons and minor daughters other than the married daughters. The definition of the `tenure-holder' in S. 3(17) is such that a minor child himself cannot be a tenure-holder where his father or mother is a tenure-holder. These definitions read with S. 5(3) of the Act lead to the position that the land of the minor son is included in the land of his father or mother, who alone can be tenure-holder under the Act. It is, in substance, the purpose of the Act that ceiling is imposed upon the land held by the entire `family'. The land held by the wife or the husband, as the case may be. as tenure-holder is clubbed with the land of the other spouse, who is treated as the tenure-holder. Similarly, the land of the minor son and minor daughter (except the married minor daughter) is also clubbed with the land of the father or the mother who is treated as the tenure-holder. Learned counsel contended that this provision would lead to a conflict with the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, which provide for the property being bequeathed by the execution of a will by a testator in favour of a minor child. Counsel's point is that such bequeathed property, if the same is land, will stand included in the ceiling area of the father or the mother who is the tenure-holder and thus the minor's interest will be put in jeopardy. Counsel's point is that such bequeathed property, if the same is land, will stand included in the ceiling area of the father or the mother who is the tenure-holder and thus the minor's interest will be put in jeopardy. In my view, this contention is completely untenable. Indian Succession Act in providing for the execution of a will merely lays down a rule of succession. It does not purport to guarantee that the property bequeathed in favour of a person, whether he be minor or major, will always remain in his possession. Obviously, this is not the purpose of the Indian Succession Act. If by a statutory enactment the Legislature seeks to take away property, whether acquired by a person by intestate succession or by testamentary succession, then it cannot be said that such legislation is bad because it nullifies the effect of succession, whether it be instestate succession or whether it be testamentary succession. Statutes which deal with succession, whether intestate or testamentary, have a completely different purpose and stand on a different plank from the purpose and the aim of the ceiling law. My attention had also been drawn to a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in B. Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 1073 . In the said pronouncement the Division Bench of the Supreme Court placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 632 State of Maharashtra v. Vyasendra, where S. 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was discussed so far as it defined the expression `family unit'. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, there is no need to further examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.