ORDER J. N. Dubey, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24-9-1982 of the Civil Judge, Jalaun, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It appears that the petitioners purchased the land in dispute from their grandfather and maternal grandfather etc. in the years 1959, 1964, 1966 and 1969 and they were duly mutated in the revenue records long before 24th January 1971. On 19-12-1972 petitioner No. 4 under the guardianship of his maternal uncle was mutated on a small piece of land in place of one Mathu Ram under the orders of the Consolidation Officer Konch. On 21-6-1974 petitioner No. 4 further purchased a small piece of land with which his father or grandfather had no concern on the relevant dates. 3. As stated above the land in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners on both the relevant dates viz. 24-1-1971 and 8-6-1973, yet the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was (not?) served upon them. However, on 5-5-1975 a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was served upon their father Ram Dayal showing 9.13 acres of land as surplus. Subsequently a second notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to Ram Dayal showing 14.40 acres instead of 9.13 acres land as surplus. Ram Dayal filed objection claiming that he did not possess any land on either of the two relevant dates, namely, 24-1-1971 and 8-6-1973 and was, therefore, not a tenure-holder within the meaning of sub-section (17) of Section 3 of the Act. The entire land which was included in the notice belonged to the petitioners and as sudh the notice issued to him was liable to be discharged. 4. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 12-6-1976 rejected the objection of Ram Dayal and declared 14.40 acres land as surplus. Ram Dayal filed a Ceiling Appeal No. 1079 of 1976 before the District Judge which was partly allowed by the III Additional District Judge on 21-8-1978 and the prescribed Authority was directed to re-determine the surplus land after giving the benefit of two additional hectares land to him on the finding that petitioner No. 1 one of his sons was major on the relevant date. Ram Dayal filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petn. Ram Dayal filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 9867 of 1978 in this Court which was dismissed on 14-4-1980. 5. After the dismissal of the writ petition the prescribed Authority proceeded to re- determine the surplus land in pursuance of the order dated 21-8-1978 of the III Additional District Judge. Ram Dayal moved an application before the prescribed Authority indicating his choice that the land situated in village Panjoinia may be taken as surplus. The prescribed Authority, however, declared 9.46 acres of land of village Tejpura Sani as surplus. 6. On 4-11-1981 petitioners filed objection before the prescribed Authority stating that they were recorded tenure-holders of the land in dispute yet they were not given any notice under Section 10(2) of the Act and their entire land was declared surplus treating it to be tenancy of Ram Dayal, who had, otherwise no concern with it. In the meantime opposite party No. 1 moved an application under Section 13A of the Act for reviewing the order of the prescribed Authority. The prescribed Authority decided both the objections of the petitioners and the review application of the opposite party No. 1 by a common order on 7-6-1982. While dismissing the objection of the petitioners he allowed the review application filed by opposite party No. 1 and declared 14.40 acres instead of 9.46 acres land as surplus with Ram Dayal. Two appeals were filed before the District Judge against the order dated 7-6-1982 of the prescribed Authority. Ceiling Appeal No. 47 of 1982 was filed by the petitioners while Ceiling Appeal No. 50 of 1982 was filed by Ram Dayal. The Civil Judge Jalaun decided both the appeals by a common order dated 24-9-1982. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioners he partly allowed the appeal of Ram Dayal with the result both the objections of the petitioners as well as the review application of the opposite party No. 1 stand dismissed. Feeling aggrieved petitioners have come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised several points during argument but it is not necessary for me to consider them all as, in my opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of on a short point. Feeling aggrieved petitioners have come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised several points during argument but it is not necessary for me to consider them all as, in my opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of on a short point. The petitioners were recorded over the laid in dispute on both the relevant dates, namely, 24th January, 1971 and 9th June, 1973, yet they were not given any notice under Section 10(2). On the other hand, their entire land was declared surplus treating it to be the holding of their father Ram Dayal. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act provides that on and from the commencement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act of 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him. While Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) provides that in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account. Thus under sub-section (1) of Section 5 all the land held by a tenure-holder in his own right whether in his name or ostensibly in the name of any other person has to be taken into account. 9. The term 'tenure-holder' has been defined under sub-section (17) of Section 3 as a person who is the holder of a holding but (except in Chapter III) does not include (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder, (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder. 10. On the relevant date the land in dispute was admittedly recorded in the names of the petitioners and therefore each of them was a separate tenure-holder within the meaning of sub-section (17) of Section 3 unless it was proved that their case was covered either by clause (a) or clause (b). Since all the petitioners are male clause (a) has clearly no application to their case. According to the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge Jalaun in Ceiling Appeal No. 1079 of 1976 of Ram Dayal, petitioner No. 1 was major on the relevant date and therefore clause (b) will also have no application to his case. Since all the petitioners are male clause (a) has clearly no application to their case. According to the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge Jalaun in Ceiling Appeal No. 1079 of 1976 of Ram Dayal, petitioner No. 1 was major on the relevant date and therefore clause (b) will also have no application to his case. Now it has to be seen whether the case of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, who were minors on the relevant date according to the said decision is covered by clause (b) or not. In order to bring their case within the purview of clause (b) not only it has to be proved that they were minors on the relevant date but it has also to be proved that either of their parents was a tenure-holder. Admittedly none of the parents of the petitioners was recorded as a tenure-holder of any land on the relevant date and, therefore, their case is also not covered by clause (b). Each of the petitioners was a separate tenure-holder within the meaning of sub-section (17) of Section 3 and was entitled for separate notice under Section 10(2) of the Act. 11. As stated above the petitioners were four separate tenure-holders within the meaning of sub-section (17) of Section 3 and therefore each one of them was entitled for a separate notice under Section 10(2) of the Act but admittedly no such notices were issued to them presumably on the ground that the land recorded in their names actually belonged to their father Ram Dayal. It is relevant to point out here that the land recorded in the names of the petitioners was purchased by them in the years 1959, 1963, 1964, 1966 and 1969 from their grandfather and maternal grandfather and they were duly mutated in the revenue records long before 24th January, 1971. This being so, it could not be so lightly presumed that the land in dispute actually belonged to their father and it was ostensibly recorded in their names for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 5. A recorded tenure-holder cannot be deprived of his valuable rights in the land with the help of Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of Section 5 without affording him an opportunity of hearing on the mere assumption that the land recorded in his name actually belongs to some other tenure-holder. 12. A recorded tenure-holder cannot be deprived of his valuable rights in the land with the help of Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of Section 5 without affording him an opportunity of hearing on the mere assumption that the land recorded in his name actually belongs to some other tenure-holder. 12. Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules makes the position further clear. It provides that as soon as may be, after the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the general notice of C.L.H. Form 1 in the official Gazette, the prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon every tenure-holder, who has failed to submit the statement in C.L.H. Form 2 or has submitted an incomplete.or incorrect statement, a notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 prepared under Rule 6 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. 13. Provided that where the statement in C. L.H. Form 3 also includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the prescribed authority shall cause to be served upon such other person a notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 calling upon him to show cause within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. 14. Thus, even assuming that the land in dispute actually belonged to the father of the petitioners and it was ostensibly held in their names, the petitioners were entitled for separate notices under Section 10(2) of the Act in view of the first proviso to Rule 8. The Courts below committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding that the petitioners were not entitled for separate notices under Section 10(2) of the Act. 15. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7th June, 1982 of the prescribed Authority and the 'order dated 24th September, 1982 of the Civil Judge, Jalaun are quashed and the prescribed Authority is directed to decide the objection of the petitioners afresh on merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The order dated 7th June, 1982 of the prescribed Authority and the 'order dated 24th September, 1982 of the Civil Judge, Jalaun are quashed and the prescribed Authority is directed to decide the objection of the petitioners afresh on merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.