V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order of first respondent in C. No. VSP/109/ 91, dated 28. 1. 1994, which was passed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976 (for short, the Act ). The petitioner is the owner of vacant land in visakhapatnam urban agglomeration. He filed declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, being C. C. Nos. 4649 and 6260 of 1976. Second respondent enquired into the same and issued a draft statement under section 8 (1) of the Act on 1. 12. 1978. The petitioner submitted objections. A revised draft statement was issued on 1. 12. 1978 holding that the petitioner is in possession of excess vacant land of 3167 Sq. mts. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before first respondent contending that his third minor son is divided as on the date of the commencement of the Act and therefore, he should have allotted separate holding under the Act, that an extent of 4009 Sq. mts was exempted under Section 20 of the Act vide orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1299, dated 13. 9. 1982 and that an extent of 1353 Sq. mts of land in R. S. No. 5/4 (part) in gajuwaka Village which is under lease to bharat Petroleum Corporation since 1957 should not be included in the holding of the petitioner. By the impugned order, first respondent partly allowed the appeal excluding an extent of 4009 Sq. mts. from the holding of the petitioner as it was exempted by the Government. Insofar as other contentions are concerned, the appeal was rejected. ( 2 ) SECOND respondent filed a counter- affidavit opposing the writ petition. Unmarried third minor son of petitioner v. Suryanarayana was member of petitioner s family and as such he is included in the definition of family and he is not entitled for separate holding. It is stated that unmarried minor children are not entitled to have separate holding and that the land leased out to M/s. Bharat Petroleum corporation cannot be excluded from the holding of the petitioner under Section 19 (1) of the Act. It is stated that unmarried minor children are not entitled to have separate holding and that the land leased out to M/s. Bharat Petroleum corporation cannot be excluded from the holding of the petitioner under Section 19 (1) of the Act. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, sri T. S. Anand, does not seriously pursue the submission that the land leased out to 255 256 m/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation stands excluded from the holding of the petitioner under Section 19 (1) of the Act. Indeed, having regard to Section 19 (2) of the Act, the land leased out to a company or corporation cannot be construed as exempted in favour of the petitioner who owns a vacant land. Be that as it is, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the third son of the petitioner who is a minor was having divided status at the commencement of the Act and therefore he should be allotted separate holding. Learned counsel has placed before me the document which purport to be a declaration under section 6 (1) of the Act filed by the petitioner and also relies on Section 2 (f) and 2 (i) of the Act which contain the definition of "family" and "person", respectively, in support of the submission that the petitioner s third minor son must be allotted separate holding. ( 4 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for revenue (Assignment), per contra, submits that under the provisions of Section 2 (f) unmarried minor children are treated as members of a person s family holding urban vacant land and therefore unmarried minor children do not have right to have separate holding of vacant land. He also submits that in the declaration filed by the petitioner, he did not claim separate holding for the minor unmarried son and it is only an after thought. ( 5 ) BEFORE considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having regard to Sections 2 (f) and 2 (i) of the Act, it would be necessary to see whether the petitioner claimed a separate holding for his minor son. A copy of the declaration allegedly filed on 15. 9. 1976 is placed before this Court to show that petitioner s minor son had an exclusive share by reason of a family partition dated 26. 3. 1975. I have perused the same. A copy of the declaration allegedly filed on 15. 9. 1976 is placed before this Court to show that petitioner s minor son had an exclusive share by reason of a family partition dated 26. 3. 1975. I have perused the same. The declaration placed before this Court is not original declaration. Indeed, to the declaration the petitioner has attached two separate slips of paper containing the following statements: the applicant has filed his return under section 6 of the Act on 14. 9. 1976 and the same was acknowledged in this office under serial No. 4649/76 dated 14. 9. 1976. On account of the applicant s inability to properly understand the various annexures, some mistakes have arisen. Therefore, the applicant is filing this return correcting the mistakes made on account of confusion etc. The application, therefore, prays that this return may be taken into consideration by the competent Authority. . . . . Misunderstanding having arisen between members of the family a partition was effect of the Hindu Joint family business assets between the declarant and his sons (1) Vankayala Venkata suryanarayana (2) Vankayala Lakshmi narasimha Murthy (3) Vankayala suryanarayan on 15. 11. 1973. In pursuance of the said partition the joint family immovable properties were also divided on 26. 3. 1975 and each one of the family member has been in exclusive possession of his share. ( 6 ) A reading of the above would show that when the applicant filed the declaration in original under Sl. No. 4649/76, dated 14. 9. 1976 he did not specifically claim a separate holding for his son. Further, in Column 14 of Declaration and in annexure-A (in column 14), petitioner was required to mention the names of persons interested in the urban property. In these two, the name of petitioner s minor son is conspicuous by absence. Therefore, these documents are not of any help to petitioner. Furthermore, the partition effected among petitioner and his three sons including minor son on 26. 3. 1975, for the purpose of the act, has no relevance having regard to section 5 (1) of the Act which renders transfer of the land after coming into force of the Act void. Such partition is also no relevance having regard to the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. 3. 1975, for the purpose of the act, has no relevance having regard to section 5 (1) of the Act which renders transfer of the land after coming into force of the Act void. Such partition is also no relevance having regard to the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. ( 7 ) WHETHER a minor son is given a right to have separate holding ? Let us read the definition of family and person . 2 (f ). "family", in relation to a person, means the individual, the wife or husband as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children. 2 (i ). "person" includes an individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not; ( 8 ) FAMILY of a person is defined as the individual, the wife or husband as the case may be and the unmarried minor children. Section 2 (i) defines the person to include an individual, a family, a firm, a company etc. Therefore, the individual and his unmarried minor children are treated as family and unmarried minor child is not separately considered as a person under the provisions of the Act. Yet again, section 4 (1) of the Act which deals with the ceiling limit of every person, lays down that every person can hold vacant land not exceeding ceiling limit mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4. Sub-section (7) of Section 4 deals with the undivided share of member of hindu undivided family. It lays down that the vacant land which would have fallen to his share had the entire vacant land of the undivided family had been partitioned among its members at the commencement of the Act shall be included in the holding of the member of the undivided family in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. Reading Section 2 (f) and 2 (i) together with Sections 4 (1) and 4 (7), it is not possible to countenance the submission that the undivided share of minor son in the Hindu undivided family must be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of the act. Reading Section 2 (f) and 2 (i) together with Sections 4 (1) and 4 (7), it is not possible to countenance the submission that the undivided share of minor son in the Hindu undivided family must be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of the act. A minor child being member of the family of a person is not entitled for a 2004 (3) FR-F-17 separate unit and only such person is entitled to a share for the purpose of the Act. ( 9 ) IT is lastly contended by Sri T. S. Anand that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Andhra pradesh has issued orders vide G. O. Ms. Nos. 455 and 456 of even date i. e. , 29. 7. 2002 under which right and possession to excess vacant land can be regularized subject to payment of market value and that petitioner may be given benefit of the same. The petitioner approached the appellate authority at the stage of draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the Act. The appellate authority therefore remanded the matter to second respondent with a direction to conduct further enquiry and dispose of the matter. Thus, the second respondent is yet to issue final statement and final orders determining surplus vacant land under the act. After the second respondent finally disposes of the matter, if not already disposed of, the petitioner is given liberty to avail benefit under Government Orders in G. O. Ms. Nos. 455 and 456, dated 29. 7. 2002 if the petitioner is eligible and complies with all the conditions under the said Government orders. ( 10 ) THE writ petition, subject to above observations, is dismissed, without any order as to costs.