K.P.Singh - (1.) IN this writ petition the ceiling authorities have declared 7.09 sq. metres as surplus land in excess of the ceiling limit held by petitioner no. 1. Aggrieved by the judgments of the Ceiling Authorities the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the house in question was purchased by petitioner no. 1 with the fund provided by his father. THErefore, the house in question was the property of a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of his wife, two daughters and a son named, Ravindra Saxena, who is petitioner no. 2 in this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ceiling authorities have patently erred in treating the disputed house as the property of petitioner no. 1 alone and erred in law in not holding the same as the property of a Hindu Undivided Family. It has also been emphasised that the evidence on record has been misappreciated and misunderstood by the ceiling authorities in calculating the surplus area held by the petitioners. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is to the effect that the house in question has servant quarters and the ceiling authorities have patently erred in not excluding the area appurtenant to the servant quarters while determining the surplus area held by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him, the ceiling authorities have taken the view on the materials on record which cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, the impugned judgments need not be quashed.
(3.) AFTER considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, I think that the Appellate Authority has not approached the problem from correct angle with the result it has erred in confirming the judgment of the Competent Authority. As regards the first contention, the Appellate Authority has observed as below : "...So far as this contention goes, it may be noticed that the appellant has filed the attested copy of the sale-deed whereunder he purchased the land and building in question. In this sale-deed it has been clearly mentioned that the appellant acquired the said property as absolute owner and not in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. There is also no iota of evidence on record to show that the said acquisition/purchase was made by the appellant from the funds of the Hindu Undivided Family. The appellant's learned counsel placed reliance on the assessment made by the Income Tax Authority and contended that the property was shown as that of Hindu Undivided Family. A perusal of the assessment order indicates that the appellant had filed a return before the Income Tax Authority as an individual and not on behalf of the Hindu Undivided Family. Hence nothing of particular importance turns upon the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the first count. In the premises, the finding of the Competent Authority on this score is liable to be upheld and it is found that the land and building is held by the appellant in his individual capacity." ;