RAM KRIPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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 the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-12-1974, a certified copy whereof is on the record. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 11-7-1978, a certified, copy whereof is also on the record. Now the Petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition, and in support thereof, I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.

(3.) The controversy is in respect of the second wife of the Petitioner. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court found that the Petitioner had a second wife. The Prescribed Authority granted benefit of two additional hectares of irrigated land on the ground that the two wives were two separate units and taking into consideration, the number of members in the family, which was held to be seven, it was held that the Petitioner was entitled to have 11.30 hectares as his ceiling area. Thereafter, the State filed an appeal and the appellate court allowed the said appeal holding that there was no evidence or material on the record to show that the second wife had been married by the Petitioner before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore, the second wife should be held to be not legally wedded wife. In the result the appellate court held that the family of the Petitioner consisted of six members only and, therefore, he was entitled to have 9.30 hectares of irrigated land as his ceiling area and not 11.30 hectares as had been held to be the ceiling area by the Prescribed Authority.