M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The facts, in brief, are these; The petitioner No. 1 was issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. Those objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30-10-1976, a true copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal and the same was decided by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 10-5-1978, a true copy whereof is Annexure No. 3 to the petition.
(2.) Now the petitioners have come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri L. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners pressed two contentions before me. Firstly, he contended that the appellate court was wrong in not giving benefit of the entire share which had been found to be that of the son of petitioner No. 1 in the land which had been found to be ancestral Sir and Khudkasht before the date of vesting. It seems that the Prescribed Authority found that 9.65 acres of land was ancestral Sir and Khudkasht before the date of vesting and that a son of the petitioner No. 1 was in existence on the said date and hence he had half share in that land. The sons share was found to be 4.83 acres. The Prescribed Authority excluded the said share of the son from the tenure-holders holding. In appeal, which was filed by the State, the appellate court held that the Prescribed Authority should not have given the benefit of the entire said area, which had been found to be the share of the petitioner No. ls son. The appellate court held that the net benefit to the petitioner-tenure-holder should have been calculated after taking into consideration the provisions in Section 5 (3) (a) & (b) wherein it is clearly laid down that benefit of two additional hectares of irrigated land for an adult son shall stand proportionately reduced if it is found that such adult son is himself a tenure-holder holding land less than two hectares of irrigated land. In other words, the maximum benefit for an adult son is fixed at two hectares of irrigated land and the extent of such benefit gets reduced in proportion to the land which is held by such adult son as a tenure-holder thereof. In this view of the matter, the appellate court was right in holding that the tenure-holder could not have both the benefits - namely, he could not get the benefit of having the share of the son excluded from his holding and at the same time the benefit of two additional hectares of irrigated land for such adult son. Therefore, the first contention is untenable.;