JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order passed by the District Judge Bahraich in proceedings arising out of an application in under Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The case has been before these authorities more than once. A notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority. Objections to the same were filed by the petitioner and before the Prescribed Authority oral and documentary evidence was tendered. Registered sale-deeds which were executed by the tenure-holder in favour of his sods and daughter-in-laws were also filed. The plea of majority of the four sons was taken. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated February 27, 1976 declared 22.021 acres as surplus land. The petitioner filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Bahraich. The Additional District Judge held that the sale-deed which were of the year prior to 1970 sod were in favour of sons and daughter-in-laws could not have been clubbed with the holding of the petitioner more - so when there was no finding that the tenure-holder himself continued to remain in possession over the said plots. After recording this findings the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for redetermination of surplus land one son of the petitioner was held to be minor by the Prescribed Authority and the three tons were taken to be major and the Prescribed Authority gave benefit of 6 hectares of the land to the petitioner for adults sons After this remand, the Prescribed Authority proceeded ex-parte and declared an area of 13.515 acres as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same which was allowed and the Prescribed Authority was directed to consider the matter again. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority after remand was not challenged by the State but the State within the period of limitation i.e., 2 years, moved an application under Section 13-A of the said Act precisely on the ground that the Prescribed Authority has given benefit of the salt-deeds to the tenure-holder but at the same time had given benefit of 6 hectares of land to the tenure-holder for adult sons. The Prescribed Authority declared an area of 13.515 acres of land as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bahraich who reduced the surplus land to 12 641 which order is now the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 13-A of the Act was not applicable to the proceedings aDd the State having submitted to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellate Court could not have taken recourse to the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act Application under Section 13-A was made rather Only on one ground that there was error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as although this time sale-deeds were excluded and the sons were holding more than 2 hectares of land, yet benefit of 6 hectares was given to the sons. As it was a case of error on the face of record inasmuch as exclusion of the land and benefit of 6 hectares could not have been given at one and the same time, the application was cognisable. The learned counsel then contended that on merits the order passed by the District Judge is equally incorrect like that of the Prescribed Authority who has misread and misinterpreted Section 5(3)(b) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Section 5(3)(b) reads as under : - "In case of a tenure-holder having family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family) besides, each of the members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult ion aggregate to two hectares subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land." At this stage, it will be proper to give the definition of the word "family" as given in the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Section 3(7) reads as under : - "Family, in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband) minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters)" 4. Section 3(7) reads as under : - "Family, in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband) minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters)" 4. From the record it is apparent that an area of 11.363 acres of the land was transferred in the name of Smt. Ketki wife of Rudra Prasad son of the tenure-holder, 5.846 acres was transferred in the name of Gondra Ram, 5.846 acres was transferred in the name of Mani Ram, 1.110 acres was transferred in the name of the Radhey Shyam while 5.846 acres was transferred in the name of the wife of Radhey Shyam. It appears that there was no sale-deed in favour of Rudra Prasad himself but an area of 5.846 acres of the land was transferred in favour of Mani Ram who has been held to be the minor son which finding the learned counsel has tried to assail in this writ petition which is not permissible as it is now a closed chapter and otherwise this finding is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and no perversity in the same could be found. So far as the daughter-in-laws are concerned, their holding could not have been taken to be the holding of their husband for purposes of granting benefit of 2 hectares of land to these sons. Rudra Prasad was not holding any land in bis name as such he was entitled to 2 hectares of land Radhey Shyam was holding only 1.110 acres of land, as such he was entitled to get that much of the land which together with 1.110 acres will become 2 hectares. So far as third son Goodra Ram is concerned he was holding 5.846 acres of land in his name. He was holding more than 2 hectares of land as 2 hectares of land comes to 4 882108 acres of land in terms of irrigated land and in case it was un-irrigated be was entitled to get less land which will come to 7.323162 acres. In this view the writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. He was holding more than 2 hectares of land as 2 hectares of land comes to 4 882108 acres of land in terms of irrigated land and in case it was un-irrigated be was entitled to get less land which will come to 7.323162 acres. In this view the writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. So far as other pleas regarding irritability or any other plea is concerned the District Judge has rightly rejected on the ground that the said matter could not have been reopened and is no longer open for challenge. 5. The writ petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Judge a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 8 is partly quashed. The District Judge, Bahraich is directed to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the holding of the sons together in order to give benefit of 6 hectares of land for adult sons. There will be no order as to the costs.