- (1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High court at Allahabad dated 10/12/1984.
(2.) Each of the appellants Hari Ram Kamani and Atma Ram Aggarwal, owned a one-half share in lands bearing Plot Nos. 129, 130 and 131 in Gorakhpur. They were served by the Competent Authority with draft statements under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called "the Act") after the same came into effect on 21/02/1976, the "appointed day" therein being January 28, 1976. The appellants and their respective sons filed objections to the draft statements. It was, inter alia, contended that the said lands were ' held by the appellants as 'kartas' of their respective Hindu undivided families. The Competent Authority rejected the contention. He held that the appellant Kamani held a total area of 8302.75 sq. metres; that the area of 3576.93 sq. metres thereout was land under construction and land appurtenant to it and that, therefore, the excess area required to be surrendered was 4725.82 sq. metres. The Competent Authority held that the appellant Aggarwal held a total area of 9969.56 sq. metres; that the area of 4874. 07 sq. metres thereout was land under construction and land appurtenant to it and that, therefore, the excess area required to be surrendered was 5095.49 sq. metres.
(3.) The appellants and their sons filed appeals before the District Judge, Gorakhpur and applied for leave to rely upon additional evidence in support of their contention that the said lands were owned by the respective Hindu undivided families of which the appellants were 'kartas'. The applications were rejected. The District Judge, upon the appeals, held that the appellants were entitled to retain an additional area of 2,000. 00 sq. metres each upon an interpretation of Section 4 (9 and Section 2 (q) of the Act (read with Schedule I, Gorakhpur having been placed in Category D therein). The appellants and their sons on the one hand and the State government on the other Filed writ petitions impugning the decision of the District Judge before the High court. The High court rejected the contentions as to ownership of the lands by the aforementioned Hindu undivided families and the application to lead additional evidence. It held that the District Judge was in error in reducing the area of the excess land held by the appellants by 2,000. 00 sq. metres each and, in so doing, it placed reliance upon this court's judgment in State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the appellants and their sons were dismissed and those filed by the State government were allowed.;