M.P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are these: The Petitioner was issued notice under Section 10(2) and he filed objections. The objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad. Now, the Petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Shri P.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Counsel contended before me that plots Nos. 575 and 576 should have been treated as grove and the said contention was wrongly rejected by the authorities below. Counsel contended that the applications which were made to the appellate court for a spot inspection and for the issuance of a commission should not have been rejected. In my view, in the writ juris" diction, I cannot interfere with the discretion of the appellate court in the said matter. Learned Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that the applications had been similarly moved before the Prescribed Authority but the same were also rejected. The copies of the said applications and the orders passed thereon have not been placed along with the petition and nothing can be said about the said rejection. In any case, as I have stated above, the writ court cannot interfere in the exercise of the discretionary powers on the part of the authorities below. Counsel next contended that certain case law of this Court supports his contention and he placed reliance on Gajraj Pal v. State : 1978 AWC 197 where Mr. Justice N.D. Ojha has laid down that the relevant date for the determination whether a plot is a grove or not is 8th June, 1973. The other cases are Mohd. Yamin v. State : 1978 AWC 793 and Shital Singh v. State : 1978 AWC 449. So far as the first case is concerned, there is nothing very material so far as the facts of the present petition are concerned. Mr. Justice Ojha laid down that the relevant date for determining the grove is 8th June, 1973, but the learned Judge did not lay down and could not have laid down that the definition of a grove in Section 3(8) will not be relevant for deciding whether a plot can be said to be a grove or not. In the said definition it is clearly laid down that the trees should 'have been planted before January 24, 1971. So far as the second case is concerned, Mr. Justice Mufti emphasised that the number of trees cannot be the sole index as to whether a particular land is a grove or not. One must also consider the age and development, kind and character of the trees and their impact, present or potential, on the land and then the learned Judge emphasised that oral evidence in these matters should not be placed much reliance on and spot inspection may be a way out. The learned Judge undoubtedly did not lay down that if the Khasra entries of the relevant years disproved the existence of a grove then those entries could not be placed reliance on. So far as the third case is concerned, again I do not find anything material there and, in fact, Mr. Justice Deoki Nandan emphasised that the Prescribed Authority was wrong in not taking into consideration the khasras for 1378, 1379 and 1380 Faslis while deciding the controversy about the existence of a grove, In the facts of the instant case, I find that the appellate court has clearly emphasised that the khasras before 1382 Fasli were not placed before the court which would have shown that really there was any grove in existence. The court was undoubtedly entitled to take into account that circumstance. It is not for this Court in its writ jurisdiction to tell the authorities below as to in what manner particular pieces of evidence should or should not be relied on. It should be seen that the burden of proof in these matters is on the tenure -holder to satisfy the court that there is really a grove within the definition of the said term in the Act. In other words, it should have been proved that the trees stood on the plots and that they had been planted before 24th January, 1971. The court was entitled to emphasise that if the same were really a fact then one would have expected the relevant entries in the khasras in the relevant years and the fact that the Petitioner chose only to place the certified copies of the khasras of 1382 Fasli and not of the earlier years is indicative of the fact that in the khasras of the earlier years there was no entry which would have supported him. Learned Counsel contended that the appellate court was not justified in saying that in the earlier objections no objection had been taken in respect of the said two plots. There also I find that in the earlier objections while explicit objections were taken in respect of plots in two separate villages, so far as the aforesaid two plots situated in village Jalalpur were concerned, nothing was said. Counsel contended that para 6 of the objections was general enough to cover the said objections. But I cannot understand why when specific objections had been taken in respect of specific plots so far as two villages were concerned, no such objection was taken in respect of village Jalalpur. However, even if the appellate court were wrong in its interpretation of the said objection, that will not invalidate the appellate judgment because basically it is based on the consideration that in the relevant khasras there was no entry which would have supported the Petitioner's contention that there was a grove in the said two plots. I should like to emphasise that I am not exercising an appellate jurisdiction in this Court but have my own limitations in writ jurisdiction.
(3.) THIS petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.;