RAM SWAROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anil Sharma, Learned Counsel for petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) It is contended that the land purchased by major son of the petitioner from his own resources could not have been included in the land of the petitioner. When he received the notice under section 10(2) read with section 29 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1973, he raised his objection whereupon the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding while considering Issue Nos. 5 & 6, that the land purchased by Pritam Singh, son of the petitioner from his own resources cannot be included in the holdings of Ram Swaroop Singh and the issues were decided in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Commissioner in appeal held the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority on Issues 5 & 6 incorrect and that Court below has not taken decision on merits on the said issue and on this ground he remanded back the matter to the Court below to decide afresh on merits after hearing both the parties. However while holding the findings it has not shown how the findings are incorrect.