STATE Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 1 of 1961), hereinafter called "the Act". The said proceedings were taken against one Kedar Nath, who figures as opposite party No. 2 in this writ petition. The Act came info force on the 3rd January, 1961. The Act was promulgated primarily for the purpose of fixing the maximum area which a tenure-holder could hold in Uttar Pradesh. The Act constituted a "Prescribed Authority" which was entitled to issue a notice to a tenure-holder calling upon him to submit a statement within thirty days of the notice disclosing the ceiling area to which the said tenure-holder was entitled under the Act. In the present case the notice in question was issued against Kedar Nath. In this notice the number of the members of the family of Kedar Nath was shown as five. Kedar Nath filed objections to this notice raising a number of pleas. The only plea however, with which we are concerned in this writ petition, related to the number of members of his family as shown in the notice. According to Kedar Nath, the number of members of his family was six and not five. This matter was contested before the Prescribed Authority, and the Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that on the date of the enforcement of the Act, i.e. on the 3rd January, 1961, the family of Kedar Nath consisted only of five members. It further came to the conclusion that subsequent to the date of enforcement of the Act a son was born to Kedar Nath in February 1961 thereby increasing the number of members in the family of Kedar Nath to six. In view of this finding the Prescribed Authority was of the opinion that Kedar Nath was not entitled to claim any additional area on the basis that the number of members of his family was six and not five. The reason given by the Prescribed Authority was that in determining the ceiling area to which a tenure-holder is entitled the relevant date should be the date of the enforcement of the Act, viz. the 3rd January, 1961, and not any subsequent date. Any issue born to the tenure-holder or any addition in the membership of the family after the said date should, therefore, be disregarded for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure-holder. In this view of the matter, the Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of Kedar Nath in this regard.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the said order, Kedar Nath filed an appeal before the District Judge under Section 13 or the Act. The appellate Court reversed the decision if the Prescribed Authority in this regard. It took the view that there was nothing in the Act to justify the conclusion that the number of members of a family of a tenure-holder is to be determined with reference to the date on which the Act came into force. It, accordingly, came to the. conclusion that the objector Kedar Nath was entitled to an additional area of eight acres in view of the fact that a son was born to him subsequent to the date on which the Act came into force. The appeal of Kedar Nath was, therefore, allowed in this regard.

(3.) Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kheri, in appeal, the State has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer in this writ petition is that this Court should issue a writ In the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order dated the 14th March, 1963, passed in appeal by the District Judge, Kheri, opposite party No. 1. Kedar Nath. as mentioned above, was imp leaded as opposite party No. 2 in this writ petition. None of the opposite parties has been represented before us in this writ petition. The State has, however, pressed this writ petition through, Its learned counsel. This writ petition originally came up for hearing before Sharma, i. who referred it to a Bench on the ground that it involved a question of some legal importance on which there was no decision of this Court.