Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Upon notice being issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the Act") on 17.3.1997 with regard to his holdings in village Garhchapa & Chureh Kaseruwa, Tehsil-Karvi, District-Chitrakoot, the petitioner filed his reply on 4.9.1997 and specifically stated that the land of khata nos. 28, 324 and 325 of village Garhchapa, District Chitrakoot was neither owned by him nor was it in his possession. He also stated that the family of the petitioner comprised his wife, two adult sons and two adult daughters and therefore, he had to get the advantage of the exemption provided for by the Act. Further objection taken by the petitioner was that the independent holding of the petitioner was unirrigated and there was no source of irrigation at all in both the villages. Still further, it was stated in the objection that the share of the petitioner in the joint holding in village Chureh Kaseruwa had wrongly been shown as his personal property even though, he had only a certain share in the holding in village Chureh Kaseruwa. It was also stated that in a fasli year only one crop was grown. After the prescribed authority had taken up the matter, the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner comprising Kissan Bahi of village Garhchapa of the Khata No.374, a copy of the Khatauni of village Garhchapa of 1402 to 1405 fasli of khatas nos.324, 325, 28 and 374, and a copy of the khataunis of 1400 to 1405 Fasli of village Garhchapa of the Khata No.75 were placed. With regard to village Chureh-Kaseruwa, Tehsil Karvi for the year 1400 to 1405 fasli khataunis of Khatas Nos. 231, 246, 260 and 161 were filed. From the side of the State, no documentary evidence was filed and only the statement of Gokul Prasad Pandey, Lekhpal Garhchapa and the statement of Kamla Prasad, Lekhpal Chureh-Kaseruwa, Tehsil Karvi were recorded. They were cross-examined by the petitioner. To prove the date of birth of the various family members of the petitioner, the Pariwar Register was also filed. Upon consideration of the objection of the petitioner, the prescribed authority by its judgment and order dated 20.1.2000 determined 5.091 hectares land as surplus of the petitioner. The judgment of the prescribed authority was confirmed by the respondent No.1 after dismissing the appeal on 2.01.2002.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted: (i) The prescribed authority fell in error in not considering the fact that it had included the khatas of outsiders in the holdings of the petitioner. It was specifically stated that Khata No.324 belonged to Bhyanker Singh and Devendra Singh. Bhyanker Singh was a complete outsider, even though Devendra Singh was the son of the petitioner but was holding the land in khata no.325 with Bhayankar Singh separately. (ii) In khata No.325 Devendra Singh s/o Rakshpal Singh (not the son of the petitioner) with his brothers Devendra Singh & Bharat Singh also sons of Rakshpal Singh were owners with one Bhayankar Singh s/o Suraj Bhan Singh. (iii) Even though the daughter of the petitioner Archana Singh was an adult on the relevant date when the notice was issued and was in possession of certain lands independently, yet plots in her ownership were clubbed with the holding of the petitioner. (iv) The plots, which came to the ownership of the family members of the petitioner in 1991 and were in the exclusive ownership of those family members, who were adults, were also clubbed with the holding of the petitioner. (v) The onus of proving that the land of the petitioner was irrigated lay squarely on the shoulders of the State Authorities, yet the burden was shifted on the petitioner and despite the fact that none of the ingredients was present as per Section 4A of the Act, which could establish that the land of the petitioner was irrigated, the holdings of the petitioner were considered as irrigated. (vi) If the statement of Gokul Prasad Pandey, Lekhpal of Garhchapa is perused, then it becomes evident that the land was unirrigated and was of "Patha" area, which was not a fertile land. (vii) If the statement of Kamla Prasad, Lekhpal of Chureh-Kaseruwa, Tehsil Karvi is perused, then it becomes evident that he had concluded that probably a pumping set was used to suck water from the pond which was present and stated that the land was irrigated. The said Kamla Prasad, Lekhpal had not been able to give any definite conclusion regarding the share of the petitioner. (viii) The ages of the children of the petitioner were also clear from the family register and also from the oral statement of the petitioner himself.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner thus stated that the orders impugned were wrongly passed and deserved to be quashed.;