M.B. Farooqi, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed on 31-12-74 by the Prescribed Authority and that passed on 13-2-76 by the appellate authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961.
(2.) Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following three points. (1) That land sold ought to have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner. (2) That proper additional advantage has not been given to the petitioner. (3) That the appellate authority has not considered the petitioners choice of plots in demarcating the additional surplus land.
(3.) By virtue of a sale deed dated 16-11-1971 the petitioner had sold land measuring 3 Bigha 18 Biswa 18 Dhur in favour of Bhikhulla and Badulla for a sum of Rs. 7500/-. Alleging that the sale deed was executed bona fide and for adequate consideration, the petitioner claimed that the land sold ought to be excluded from his holding. The ceiling authorities repelled the plea after holding that the sale transaction was not bona fide. On the question of bona fides the case of the petitioner was that on account of the drought conditions he fell short of funds and needed money for family expenditure which prompted him to make the sale. The ceiling authorities found that there was no evidence to show that drought conditions had prevailed in the relevant year had concluded that the sale transaction was not made in good faith. The argument of the learned counsel is that the ceiling authorities have not considered the claim in its proper perspective. He urged that they have not considered the material point whether the petitioner needed money for family expenditure. I am unable to accept this argument. That question could arise only if it was found that drought conditions prevailed in the relevant year. The ceiling authorities have found otherwise. As such, the finding cannot be said to be vitiated. The first point fails.;