JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the judgment of IV Additional District Judge, Fatehpur dated 29-10-1962 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 14-10-82. 2. It appears that by the order dated 26th March, 1981 passed by the District Judge, Fatebpur, the Prescribed Authority recalculated the surplus land in possession of the petitioner and held on 14-10-1982 that the petitioner had 2.61 acres of irrigated land. Against this judgment, the petitioner went up in appeal to the District Judge which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 29-10-1982. 3. Challenging this order as well as the order of the District Judge dated 29-3-1981 the learned counsel said that the petitioner did not have any land in excess of the prescribed limit, hence, the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was erroneous and incorrect. 4. The learned counsel has taken a number of points in support of this petition. However, as I find that most of the points have been concluded by findings of fact. I do not consider the same. One of the points raised by the learned counsel was with regard to benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 5. The petitioner had three adult sons on the 8th June 1973. He claimed that under clause (b) of sub-section (c) of Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Act), he was entitled to have two hectares for his each adult son. By the order dated 26-3-1981, the District Judge had refused to accord benefit of this provision to the petitioner on the ground that two of the sons possessed more than two hectares of land in their own right. For the Third son Jagdish Narain, his finding was that his land was clubbed with his wife, the total area being 4.94 acres equivalent to 2 hectares. 5. Sri Dhruv Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to the sons aforesaid was erroneous. So far as this submission with regard to Ganga Sagar and Ganga Narain is concerned, I am unable to uphold it. The learned District Judge has referred to the statement of Lekhpal, who has stated that each one of the two sons had more than two hectares. So far as this submission with regard to Ganga Sagar and Ganga Narain is concerned, I am unable to uphold it. The learned District Judge has referred to the statement of Lekhpal, who has stated that each one of the two sons had more than two hectares. As this statement has been relied upon by the learned District Judge, it is not open to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to take a different view when nothing has been, shown to me to come to the finding that the same was perverse or that the District Judge has committed any mistake in arriving at this finding. It is true that no Prapatra in form no. 3 has been filed in respect of the two sons in this case. But that was not conclusive of the controversy. The statement of witness Raja Ram went un-rebutted on the controversy that each one of the two sons had two hectares. Therefore, this submission fails. 6. So far as Jagdish Narain is concerned, the total land recorded in his name was 4.38 acres including the land held by his wife. Section 5 (3) (b) does not permit clubbing of land held by the wife for its purpose. The District Judge, was, therefore, wrong in taking the land held by the wife and husband together and in arriving at the finding that he has more than two hectares and the petitioner would not get benefit of Section 3 (3) (b). Therefore, the finding with regard to the third son by the judgment dated 26-3-1981 cannot be upheld. 7. Consequent upon the quashing of the judgment of the District Judge dated 26-3-1981, the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 14-10-1981 and that of the Additional District Judge dated 29-10-1982 would also fall to the ground. 8. I have already mentioned above that the other points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner were concluded by findings of fact. That being so, I need not deal with them. 9. For these reasons, the writ petition succeeds partly and is allowed. The judgment of the District Judge dated 26-3-1983, of the Prescribed Authority dated 14-10-1981 and of the IV Additional District Judge dated 29-10-1982 would stand quashed to the extent indicated above. The petitioner would be entitled to get two hectares of land under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 5. The judgment of the District Judge dated 26-3-1983, of the Prescribed Authority dated 14-10-1981 and of the IV Additional District Judge dated 29-10-1982 would stand quashed to the extent indicated above. The petitioner would be entitled to get two hectares of land under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 5. After deducting this area, the Prescribed Authority will work cut the surplus land with him. No order as to costs.