K.N.GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order of Civil Judge, Sitapur in an appeal under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act. A number of objections were raised by the petitioner before the Ceiling authorities. They were all rejected by the Prescribed Auhority and the appellate authority. The findings of the appellate authority are challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) IT was contended that plots No. 577, 630 and 705 were grove land. This contention was rejected by both the authorities. The appellate authority has referred to the oral evidence as well as Khasra entries. It appears that for the first time in 1380 Fasli there is a mention of certain trees. This means that on the relevant date i. e. 24-1-1971, as specified in section 3(8) of the Act, no such entry existed. The finding that the said plots were not grove land does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Likewise the finding that seven acres of land was not proved to be Usar land is based on relevant and admissible evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the Prescribed Authority has wrongly taken into consideration the area of plot No. 1335 as well although in respect of that plot Sia Ram Singh filed an objection claiming the same to be his. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of Sia Ram Singh observing that the same could be filed at the stage of proceedings under section 14(3), which pro ision on the relevant date was as follows: "(3) On the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), any person claiming interest as a tenure-holder or a lessee in possession from the tenure-holder in the surplus land in respect of which the notification has been published, may, within thirty days thereof, file an objection before the Prescribed Authority indicating the extent of his interest in such land."
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that this provision has since been deleted with effect from 10-10-1975. Irrespective of the subsequent legislative amendment the fact remains that although objection could be filed by Sia Ram Singh at a subsequent stage, it was nevertheless necessary for the prescribed authority to have given a clear finding as to whether this plot was held by the petitioner or not. It was necessary to give a finding on this question in order to arrive at the determination of the surplus area. If this plot was not actually held by the petitioner, then the area held by him would have stood reduced to that extent. It seems that the petitioner himself was at fault, inasmuch as he does not seem to have made any objection himself about this plot and was content to leave the matter to rest with the objection filed by Sia Ram Singh. Howsoever that may be, it was necessary for the prescribed authority and the appellate authority to have decided one way or the other whether this plot was being held by the petitioner.;