K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge Basti, dated 16.2.76 in Misc. Appeal no. 261 of 1974 Lal Parmatma Prasad v. State. The Prescribed Authority through its judgment dated 5.11.74 has declared 3-93 hectares irrigated land as surplus area of the petitioner. In the present writ petition, the petitioner had filed an objection in pursuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of ceiling on Land Holdings Act served upon him. One of the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner was that a large number of plots constituting Khata no. 182 of village Thambwa belonged to Ram Janki but the same have been wrongly treated as tenancy of the present petitioner. According to the petitioner-tenure-holder if the aforesaid area is excluded from the ceiling limit of the petitioner, there would be no surplus area. Both the ceiling authorities have negatived the claim of the petitioner and aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same point before me and he has stressed that the area standing in the name of Ram Janki is the tenancy of the aforesaid Ram Janki and the petitioner has no concern with the area. The petitioner is only Sarvarakar of Ram Janki, hence the area belonging to Ram Janki cannot be treated as the tenancy of the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and he has emphasized that the findings recorded by the ceiling authorities in the circumstances of the present case are correct and should not be interfered with. I have gone through the impugned judgments. I am quoting the decision of the appellate authority dealing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant as below :- ' 'Being aggrieved by the above order of the prescribed authority the tenure-holder Lal Parmatma Prasad Lal has now come up in appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at great length and have also perused the order passed by the learned Prescribed authority. It is no doubt correct that the agricultural land situated in village Thumbwa has been entered in the name of Ram Janki grove even proper to 1359 F, the date of vesting, but there is no registered deed in respect of the creation of the above truest of endowment in favour of Smt. Ram Janki. Besides, it would be further significant to note that at first Smt. Jairaji Kunwar, mother of the appellant was the Jaraunnalys of Ram Janki and thereafter the appellant himself became the Jaraunnalys section 6 (f) says that only that land which is held from before the 1st May, 1959 by a public religious or charitable waqf, trust or endowment, the income from which is wholly utilized for religious or charitable purpose, shall be for the purposes of determining the ceiling area. It further says that in case the waqf, trust or endowment of the land of which beneficiaries are wholly or partly the settlors or members of his family or his descendants than that shall not be exempt from the operation of the Ceiling Act, 1960. In this case there can be no doubt at all that the entire income from the above agricultural land which has been dedicated to Ram Janki, is not being wholly utilized for religious or charitable purposes and that further the beneficiaries of the above endowment are the members of the family of the settlor. Therefore, the above agricultural and cannot be excluded from the operation of the ceiling Act, 1960. The finding of the learned Prescribed Authority on the above point is thus perfectly correct." In view of the above observation made by the appellant authority it is clear that the appellate authority has examined the claim of the petitioner in the light of the provisions of Section 6 (f) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In my opinion the appellate authority has not appreciated the real controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the area standing in the same of Ram Janki is the tenancy of Ram Janki and the same cannot be termed as the tenancy of the petitioner. The discussion in the impugned judgments indicates that the petitioner or his mother were only Sarvarakar of Ram Janki. In that event the tenancy would be deemed to have been held by Shri Ram Janki rather than it can be treated as the tenancy of the present petitioner. The present petitioner's position qua the tenancy would be only that of a manager. From the materials on record it is not clear that the land standing in the name of Shri Ram Janki ever belonged to the petitioner or his ancestors. In that event the provisions of section 6 (f) of the Ceiling Act are not at all attracted to the claim of the petitioner. The real point to be examined by the ceiling authorities in the present case would be as to whether the petitioner held the land on 8.6.73 when the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was enforced in the area. Since the authorities have not examined the claim of the petitioner from correct angle and they have emphasized the provisions of Section 6 (f) of the aforesaid Ceiling Act only, it is but proper that their judgments should be quashed and in the circum stances of the present case the appellate authority should be asked to re-examine the claim of the petitioner as to whether the area standing in the name of Ram Janki can never be treated as the tenancy of the present petitioner in the light of the evidence on the record. Both the authorities have treated the land standing in the name of Ram Janki as being the land belonging to the present petitioner though they have mentioned in their judgments that the petitioner was only Sarvarakar of Ram Janki, hence it is in the interest of justice that the authorities may examine the question as to whether the area standing in the name of Ram Janki can ever be the tenancy of the present petitioner. If the answer is in the negative the aforesaid area would be excluded from the Ceiling limit of the present petitioner and there after the surplus area would be determined. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs.;