M.P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The facts in brief are these: The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) and he filed objections, a true copy whereof is annexure 1. The Prescribed Authority decided the said objections and thereafter the petitioner went up in appeal and the Civil Judge, Jalaun decided the appeal, a true copy whereof is annexure 8 to the petition. The appeal was dismissed. Now, the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Rajeshji Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below were absolutely unjustified in treating the three plots namely, plots Nos. 663/1, 57 and 572/5, total area 14.77 acres, in the holding of the petitioner. His contention is that the petitioner is a deity and the endowment concerned is an old endowment of land standing. These three plots are not the originally dedicated plots. These three plots were dedicated by the donor, Shri Raghav Das in favour of the deities known as Ram Janki Lakhan Lal Ji Installed in an old temple at the village Pachokhara. This was done by a registered deed dated 28th Oct 1964, a true copy whereof is annexure 5. It is clearly recited in this document that the three plots belonged to the donor and they were being dedicated in favour of the said deity. It seems that when form No. 3 was issued to the petitioner these three plots were included in its holding and were treated as plots dedicated in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel tor the petitioner contends that there was no justification for including these three plots in the endowment in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner was a deity separate from Shri Ram Janki Lakhan Lal Ji in whose favour these plots were dedicated by the aforesaid deed dated 28th Oct. 1964. This contention has seemed to me to be correct. It is obvious that here there is no question of any effort to circumvent the ceiling law and the only question is whether the aforesaid dedication in favour of the named deity could be treated to be a dedication in favour of the petitioner Thakur Lakshmi Narain Ji. The prescribed Authority and the lower appellate court both have emphasised the point that the temple was one and in such circumstances even it the deities were separate they could not be treated as separate entities. In my opinion, this is not the correct position in law. Even if the temple was one which fact has not been disputed, still, the deities were separate and one can understand a situation where a worshipper is inclined to make the dedication in favour of only one of the two deities installed in a temple. For example, one can understand a worshipper of Durga Ji making a dedication in favour of the said deity alone even though the said deity is installed in a Vaishnav temple. In my view, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record which could show that a dedication made in favour of Ram Janki Lakhan Lal Ji as the deity named in the aforesaid registered document, was the deity represented by the petitioner. The petitioner, it should be seen, is Thakur Lakshmi Narain Ji and it is obviously separate from the deity named in the said document. Learned Standing Counsel prayed that this matter should be remanded to the authorities below for a further clarification. It seems to me that no useful purpose will be served by such remand because it is a situation where the necessary facts have already come. The deities are undoubtedly separate and in law they should be deemed to have separate legal entities. Irrespective of whether the deities are installed in one temple or in two separate temples I have reached the aforesaid conclusion. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no point in sending back this controversy to the authorities below.
(3.) In the circumstances, this petition is hereby allowed and the order of the prescribed Authority and judgment of the appellate court below are hereby quashed. Looking to the fact that an area of 3.35 acres has been held to be the surplus land in the hands of the petitioner, in view of my aforesaid finding whereby the aforesaid three plots will stand excluded from the holding of the petitioner and taking into consideration the area of the said three plots, it is obvious that there was no surplus land in the hand of the petitioner. Accordingly, the notice under Section 10 (2) issued to the petitioner shall stand discharged and no land in the hands of the petitioner shall be treated as surplus. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;