- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Fatehpur dated 16-10-76 in Revenue Appeal No. 5 of 1976 Chandra Bhushan Prasad v. State of U. P.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended before me the following points : According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the ceiling authorities have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in adding the land given to Thakurji by way of wakf deed dated 19-10-70 to the holding of the petitioner, hence the determination of surplus area of the petitioner stands vitiated in law. Secondly, he has contended that the land subject matter of the aforesaid wakf would belong to Thakurji and Thakurji is entitled to have 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. Thus the ceiling authorities have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not excluding the aforesaid area from the holding of the petitioner in view of S. 5 (3) (e) read with S. 5 (5) (b) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Thirdly he has contended that the ceiling authorities have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in applying the provisions of S. 6 (f) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to the facts of the present case. He has stressed that the petitioner had never claimed any benefit under S. 6 of the aforesaid Ceiling Act. He has further contended that the ceiling authorities have committed an error in reading the wakf deed and holding that the petitioner was beneficiary wholly or partly under the document. Fourthly he has contended that the wakf deed was a genuine document and it was neither sham, fictitious or no document in the eye of law, hence its effect could not be ignored by the ceiling authorities. Lastly he has contended that the ceiling authorities have not examined the claim of the petitioner with regard to the unirrigated land and they have placed onus on wrong shoulder, hence their judgments stand vitiated in law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the state has tried to justify the findings recorded by the ceiling authorities. According to him the provisions of S. 5 of the aforesaid Ceiling Act were attracted and since the wakf deed was executed after the first day of May, 1959 hence it was rightly ignored by the ceiling authorities and the area given in wakf was rightly dubbed together with the land of the petitioner tenure-holder. He has further submitted that in the present case " endowment" is not a transfer" , hence the provisions of S. 5 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were not at all attracted. According to him the " endowment" is not a " transfer" to a living person. Hence the right of the tenure-holder did not extinguish in the area given in endowment and he was rightly held the tenure-holder of the area, subject-matter of wakf deed. Lastly he has submitted that the Prescribed Authority rightly placed burden upon the petitioner to prove that his land was unirrigated, hence there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority which stands confirmed by the appellate authority.;