M.P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.
(2.) The petitioner was served with the usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the said Act and he filed objections. The objections were disposed of by the prescribed Authority and thereafter the controversy was taken to the appellate court below. The appellate court below partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the prescribed Authority. The petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and his learned counsel Sri B. P. Agarwal raised two contentions before me. The first contention is that the land which was the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings should not have been included in the land holding of the petitioner. In my opinion this contention is not correct. The prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court both have emphasised that on the relevant material date, the proceedings were still going on. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act clearly lays down that the title in respect of the acquired land comes to be extinguished in the title holder and simultaneously comes to vest in the Government with effect from the date when the possession of the land is taken after the Collector has made his award under Section 11. On the material date it is not disputed that the said situation had not crystallised, and therefore, on the material date the title still vested in the father of the petitioner who was said to be the holder of the plots concerned.
(3.) The second contention raised by the counsel is concerning the number of member in the family. This is a pure finding of fact and in the writ jurisdiction it is not open to me to re-appraise evidence on the record.;