B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the Order dated 24th November, 1981 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Agra, in an appeal purported to be under the provisions of Sec. 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts lie in a very short compass, and they are; the notices Under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act were issued to the Petitioner to file his objection. Particularly it was alleged by the Petitioner that Chaka No 36, area 33 bights, 8 Bissau and 6 Kiwanis, situate in village Seward, and plot No. 262, area 10 Bights, 18 Bissau, situate in village Anal Cheri, were unrelated land, and they had incorrectly been treated to be irrigated. The case of the Petitioner was contested by the State of U.P. and the aforesaid allegations were denied. It was alleged that the statements prepared Under Sec. 10(1) of the Act were correct.
(2.) Earlier the matter had come to this Court in Writ Petition 1587 of 1976, and the case was remanded to find out as to whether the plots in dispute were situate within 16 Kames. From the deep stream of the Jejuna River, as contemplated by Sec. 4 of the Act. After the remand, the Petitioner filed a map prepared by the Education Department for showing that plots Nos. 36 and 262 are within 16 Kames. From deep stream of the Jejuna River, but that was not considered by the II Additional District Judge, Agra, as the same was not prepared by the Revenue authorities, even though after examining the relevant extracts of Chars some relief was given to the Petitioner, and the appeal was partly allowed. But so far as relief on the basis of Sec. 4 of the Act was concerned, the same was rejected.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. SMTP. S.S. Chatham appearing for the Petitioner, urged that in view of Sec. 36 of the Indian Evidence Act any map prepared by any authority of either the Central Government or the State Government was a relevant document to prove the fact in issue, and in the instant case even though the map was prepared by the Education Department, and since it was an authority of the State Government that map could not be rejected by the appellate court simply on the ground that it was not prepared by the revenue authorities. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has urged that as the map was not prepared by the Revenue authorities the same was not admissible in evidence.;