K.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) THIS Writ petition is directed against the judgment of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dated 17.2.77 in Revenue Appeal No. 127 of 1976, Mohammad Ibrahim versus State of U. P.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the appellate authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the choice indicated by the petitioner. The appellate autho­rity has answered the question raised on behalf of the petitioner in the follwing words:- "I have heard both the parties and have also gone through Sections 9 and 12-A of the Act. Discretion has been given to the Prescribed Authority and he has rightly ignored the choice. The plots for which there was offer, were under litigation and the tenure-holder was not in possession. In these circumstances, the choice was rightly not considered." The Prescribed Authority has dealt with the grievance of the petitioner in the following words:- "It is clear that the land of the tenure-holder's wife, situated in Tahsil Nagma, is under dispute and it may be difficult for the State to take possession of this land if declared surplus. This is likely to result in loss of the entire purpose of Ceiling Act. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept the indicated choice of the tenure-holder."
(3.) SECTION 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act records thus:- "The Collector shall at any time after- (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ......takes possession of the surplus land determined under Section 11, Section 12 or Section 13 and also of any ungathered crop of fruits of trees, not being crops or fruits to which sub-section (1) of Section 15 applies, after evicting any person found in occupation of such land, crops or fruits and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." ;