Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated November 28, 1973 of the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and that dated May 13, 1975 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr on appeal therefrom.
(2.) THREE objections were raised by the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The first objection was that the statement prepared by the lekhpal was not correct, and was against the papers as well as against the facts and circumstances. This objection was of a general nature. The second objection was that plot No. 318 and 319 measuring 1 bigha 8 biswas and 10 biswansis was 'abadi' land and that plot No. V4 measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa was unirrigated. The third objection was that the land measuring 19 bighas 16 biswas and 7 biswansis had been sold on September 13, 1971 in good faith and that it should be excluded from the consideration in determining the ceiling area of the surplus land with the petitioner. Of these these objections, the first need not detain us. With regard to the second objection, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Prescribed Authority has held that plot Nos. 318 and 319 were not 'abadi' land only on the ground that the petitioner produced no evidence in support of the objection that these plots were 'abadi' land. The petitioner has, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, affirmed that a copy of C. H. Form No. 3 Part Kha was produced before the Prescribed Authority and that this document showed that plot Nos. 318 and 319 were 'abadi' land. This allegation has been dealt with in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit in a very strange manner. Firstly, the Ceiling Clerk in the Collectorate who has made the counter-affidavit could not be said to be competent to deny or admit the fact in issue, inasmuch as, it was for the Prescribed Authority to say whether that particular document had been filed before him and if so, why he did not take that document into consideration in dealing with the petitioner's objection. Further, while in the first sentence, the deponent of the counter affidavit admits the contents of paragraph 6 of the writ petition, in subsequent sentences he denies that the petitioner produced a copy of the C. H. form No. 3 Part-Kha to prove that plot Nos. 318 and 319 are 'abadi' land. It has, therefore, to be taken as proved that the petitioner did produce a copy of C. H. Form No. 3 Part-Kha showing that plots Nos. 318 and 319 were 'abadi' land before the Prescribed Authority and that the Prescribed Authority did not take this document into consideration while dealing with the petitioner's objection. That apart a statement under the Act is supposed to be prepared by the Prescribed Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act after examining the relevant khasras and other revenue records. The Prescribed Authority is also required to make local inspection where necessary. It is only after the statement has been prepared that a notice is issued to the tenure-holder under Section 10 (2) for filing objections against the statements so prepared and it is that objection which is heard by the Prescribed Authority for finding out whether the statement prepared is correct or not. If an objection is that a certain entry is incorrect and the point can be verified by a reference to the revenue records on the basis of which the statement is supposed to have been prepared it is too much to say that the objection is not sustainable because the objector has failed to produce the relevant entry from the revenue record in support of the objection. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Prescribed Authority to verify the correctness of that part of the statement which could be checked by a reference to the revenue record in his possession if an objection is raised in that behalf rather than to dismiss the objection on the ground that the certified copy of the revenue record has not been filed by the objector. So far as this objection is concerned, the learned Additional Civil Judge has not taken note of it, for in his judgment dated May 13, 1975, he has referred only to the third point. The result is that it must be held that the learned Additional Civil Judge confirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority on that point. Since I have come to the conclusion that the finding of the Prescribed Authority on that point is vitiated in law, inasmuch as, he ignored the C. H. Form No. 3, the two judgments cannot be sustained on this point.
(3.) WITH regard to the second part of the second objection, namely, that plot No. 94 was not irrigated land, my attention has been invited by learned counsel to the application made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit to show that the petitioner had stated on oath, before the Prescribed Authority that the plot was not irrigated. That may not be sufficient because the determination of the question whether certain land is irrigated or unirrigated has to be made by the Prescribed Authority on the considerations laid down under Section 4-A of the Act. It may be open to the Prescribed Authority to disbelieve the statement on oath but it would lead to greater satisfaction among those whose lands are declared surplus under the Ceiling Act if the objections raised by them are squarely met by the Prescribed Authorities under the Act rather than brushed aside on inadequate findings and reasons. Since the order of the Prescribed Authority has to be quashed in view of the error of law apparent there from in respect of the objection relating to plot Nos. 318 and 319, it would be expedient to quash the order as a whole and to allow the petitioner afresh opportunity of substantiating all his objections before the Prescribed Authority. In view of this consideration, I do not consider it expedient to make any observations on the merits of the last objection raised by the objector before the Prescribed Authority except for saying that on the material placed before me, it does not appear that the finding of the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge that the consideration for the transfer was inadequate is in any way, erroneous in law on the face of the record, but that should not prejudice the petitioner in leading fresh evidence on this point also before the Prescribed Authority. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated November 28, 1973 and that of the Additional Civil Judge dated May 13, 1975 are quashed. The Prescribed Authority shall hear and decide the petitioner's objections afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. The amounts deposited under the interim order dated 2-9-1975 shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.;