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) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the III Additional District Judge, Nainital. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri J. C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Only one contention is involved in this petition. The learned counsel contended that the land, which stood in the name of the petitioner's wife Smt. Basanti Devi and of which she was an (sic) the Asami of a class not covered by Section 3 (9) of the Act, could not be included in the holding of the petitioner. He placed reliance on the definition of the expression "holding" contained in Section 3 (9) reproduced below:- "holding means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sub-lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease". The petitioner has asserted in Para 6 of the petition: "That Smt. Basanti Devi also filed an objection stating that she is an asami, and it is admitted case of the parties that Smt. Basanti Devi is not asami of the Gaon Sabha or of a class mentioned in Section 11 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act."
(3.) The said allegation has not been denied in the counter-affidavit and, therefore, it can be reasonably held that Smt. Basanti Devi is not an Asami of the Gaon Sabha and is also not an Asami under Section 11 of the U. P. Act. No. 1 of 1951. Therefore, it follows that the plots in her name, of which she is the Asami, will not be deemed to be "holding under Section 3 (9) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel contended that as Smt. Basanti Devi did not have any holding therefore, her land cannot be clubbed with that of the petitioner, who is the husband of Smt. Basanti Devi. To decide this controversy it seems that it will be necessary to consider certain other provisions in the Act. In Section 3 (7) of the Act family has been defined thus: " family, in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or her husband as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters)".;