- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel representing the petitioner.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The only submission urged in sup port of the writ petition by the learned Standing Counsel is that the recorded tenure-holder, while contesting the notice issued under Section 10 of the U. P. Im position of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960, had not filed any objection claiming the land in dispute to be ancestral Sir and Khud Kasht and therefore, it was not open to the prescribed authority to entertain the plea in this regard and the appellate authority has erred in allowing the appeal holding that the land in dispute fell within the ceiling limit on the ground that the interest of the other co-tenure holders who claimed to be share holders in their own independent rights in the ancestral Sir and Khud Kasht was liable to be ex cluded, while determining the extent of the surplus land. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that in fact the plea had been raised in the objection filed under Section 11 (2) of the Act by the affected tenure holder who had not been recorded in the revenue records.
(3.) CONSIDERING the implications aris ing under the decision of this Court in the case of Dilbagh Singh v. State of U. P. , 1978 AWC 393, the respondent authority could very well go into the question of the extent of the tenurial rights claimed by the objec tors in the objections under Section 11 (2) of the Act while determining the extent of the surplus area of the recorded tenure-holder. The findings returned against the petitioner by the appellate authority are based on an appraisal of evidence on record and do not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity which may justify any interference in the present proceedings.;