S.N.Dwivedi, J. - (1.) This case presents an interesting question about the interpretation of sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, (Act I of 1961). Hereinafter I shall refer to it as "the Act". Before considering the question it is necessary to set out a few facts and dispose of another short contention of the petitioner. Plots Nos. 1512, 1513, 1514, 1516, 1517, 1520/1 and 1521/1, situate in village Pakaria Naugawan Chak Mustaqil in the district of Pilibhit, were held by one Raja Radha Raman presumably as a Bhumidhar. Those plots covered an area of 12 acres. By a sale deed executed and registered on September 15, 1959 he sold them to Laxmi Lal, the petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 1,500/-.
(2.) When proceedings commenced under the Act in the village, the Prescribed Authority constituted under the Act ignored the sale and assumed that the sold plots were still held by the seller. On that assumption he declared 8.35 acres of land belonging to the seller as surplus land under the Act. The area of the surplus land was directed to be carved out of the sold area. The surplus land vests in the State under the Act.
(3.) Thereafter the Prescribed Authority published a notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act in the Gazette, dated December 16, 1961 declaring the said area as surplus land. Then the petitioner filed an objection under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 alleging that he was the tenure holder of the area which has been declared as surplus land and that the declaration was illegal. It was further alleged that the negotiation for sale was really concluded on August 4, 1959 though the sale deed was executed and registered on September 15, 1959. The Prescribed Authority, by his order dated March 27, 1962, dismissed the objection. The petitioner went in appeal from his order to the District Judge, Pilibhit. The appeal was transferred to the Civil Judge, Pilibhit. The Civil Judge dismissed the appeal on January 16, 1963. He seems to be inclined to take the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the negotiation for sale was concluded on August 4, 1959. Alternatively, he has affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority that in view of the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 5 the sale was to be ignored.;