M. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are these. Kali Charan who is the respondent no. 3 in this petition, was treated as the tenure-holder and proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Act were initiated against him. THE Prescribed Authority decided the objections by his order dated 12-11-1979 a true copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. THEreafter, an appeal was filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in this petition. It may be stated that the respondent no. 3 Kali Charan is the grand-father of the respondent no. 4 Ajai Mehra. THE said appeal was allowed and the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was discharged as it was held that no surplus land was with the tenure-holder Kali Charan. Now the State has come up in the instant writ petition and in support there of, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and in opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 3 and 4 has made his submission. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the gift deed was void inasmuch as it was illegally registered at Bombay. It was further contended that the registration at Bombay was by the Sub-Registrar and not by the Registrar as required by Section 30 of the Registration Act. The latter submission cannot be allowed to be raised in this petition because it was never canvassed earlier. Whether the registration was by the Sub-Registrar or by the Registrar, cannot be decided unless the document is before the court. As the State never raised this contention before the authorities below, I cannot allow this contention to be raised. In view of Section 30 of the Registration Act, which is by way of an exception to Section 28 of the Registration Act, it was possible for the gift-deed to be registered at Bombay. However, it is really not necessary to consider whether the gift-deed was a valid one or invalid one. It should be seen that the appellate court held that the tenure-holder had only 1/4 share in the land in question and not 1/2 as held by the Prescribed Authority. For coming to the said conclusion reliance was placed on Ram Nagina v. State of U. P., 1978 RD 280 and Saraar v. Munsilal, 1977 AWC 122. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the appellate court was wrong in not considering the oral evidence on record on this controversy. From the evidence on record, it is obvious that there was no oral evidence from the side of the State to show that Kali Charan had really 1 /2 share. From the order of the Prescribed Authority, it is obvious that the said tenure-holder was held to have 1/2 share on the basis of the interpretation of the Khatauni entries and on the ground that when the mutation was effected in favour of the donee, certain words were used which according to the Prescribed Authority went to show that the tenure-holder Kali Charan had 1/2 share. I do not think that the Prescribed Authority was justified in the interpretations which he placed on the relevant Khatauni entry and on the mutation entry. However, the real point is that the Prescribed Authority also did not place any reliance on the oral evidence to hold that Kali Charan, the tenure-holder had 1/2 share. In such circumstances, it was not necessary for the appellate court to deal with any oral evidence on this point, and in the circumssance, I do not think that any interference is called for in this petition. It is not disputed that if Kali Charan's share was only 1/4th then he did not have surplus land and the question about the acceptance or rejection of the gift-deed does not call for any decision. The writ petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;