K.C.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Third Additional District Judge. Muzaffarnagar dated April 28, 1975 holding that 7 Bighas 3 Biswas 17 Biswansi land of the petitioner was liable to be declared as surplus,
(2.) IN response to the notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner filed an objection and claimed that as he had two adult sons he was entitled to four hectares of additional land under clause (a) of Section 5 (3) of the Act. The claim of the petitioner was repelled by the Prescribed Authority on the finding that since those two adult sons as the petitioner were Pakistani na­tional and were not Indian citizens, the petitioner was not entitle I to additional land for those sons. In appeal the finding of the Prescribed Authority was maintained. Hence this writ petition. For appreciating the controversy involved in this case I may refer to clause (a) of Section 5(3) of the Act, which lays down: - 5. (3): On the case of tenureholder having a "family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land includ­ing land held by other members of his family), plus two addi­tional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates to two hectares, for such of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold fess than two hectares of irrigated land sub­ject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land;
(3.) IT would be seen that in a case covered by the aforesaid clause a tenure holders becomes entitled to two additional hectares of land. A tenure holder who gets additional land under this clause continues to be its owner. By virtue of this section the ownership or the rights of the tenure holder do not neither stand transferred in favour of the adult sons nor the rights of the tenureholder get extinguished. This section does not make any distinction between a son of a tenureholder being an Indian citizen or a citizen of another country. It simply provides that for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, a tenurpholder having a family of not more than 5 members shall be entitled to get two additional hectares of land for each one of the two sons subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land. It is therefore not possible to interpret this provision as laying down that its benefit would be available to a tenureholder only when his adult son is Indian citizen. Simply be­cause at one time the relations between India and Pakistan were not good and that it had been declared an enemy country does not mean that an Indian citizen who is a tenureholdet is not entitled to get additional land for each one of his adult sons. In fact: the courts below were completely wrong in applying the provisions of the Enemy Properties Act and in holding that if additional land is given to the tenureholder and as the name would subsequently be liable to be declared as enemy property within the meaning of that Act therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the said land. Firstly, the Pakistan is not now an enemy country and secondly the land would, be given under clause (a) of Section 5(3) of the Act to the tenureholder living in India and not to the Pakistani nationals. Hense as the land, given to such a tenureholder does not become the property of a Pakistani national at any point of time, the question of its deslaration as Enemy Property would not arise.;