SHYAM BEHARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Though this mat ter was listed for admission, but on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 13-2-85 and the judgment of the appellate authority dated 18-8-87.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that under the provisions of Ceil ing Act, it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority to peruse the Khasra extract of 1378, 1379 and 1380 fasli for determining the irrigation facilities as provided under Section 4-A of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and if these khasra are not available the:: other evidence can be looked into. The statement of Lakhpal is of not much help in view of the specific provisions being there in the Act itself. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority was not legally correct in determining the ceiling area and in determining the irrigated land merely on the basis of the statement of Lakhpal. It has also been contended that the Lakhpal Sri Nand Ram has stated on oath that while preparing the relevant document in 1389 F&sjj, he had Taken help of Khasra 1387,1388 and 1389 fasli. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of Lekhpal is on the record. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land of the step mother of the petitioner should not have been included in the holdings of the petitioner. On behalf of the State of coun-tar-affidavit has been filed in this case and the learned standing counsel has urged that the papers were prepared on the basis of the khasra extract of 1378,1379 and 1380 Fasli and the irrigated area has been shown in Akar Patra 3 Ga which was attached to the notice and it was rightly held by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner has failed to prove his case.