UMA SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to a notice issued under Section 10 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (briefly stated as 'the Act'), the petitioner filed an objection. He claimed, inter alia, that as there were six members in his family, he was entitled to two hectares to additional land under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. The claim was repelled by the Prescribed Authority. This was affirmed in appeal by the learned Civil Judge. Hence, this writ.

(2.) THE fact that the family of the petitioner consisted of six members was not in dispute. His family consisted of himself, his wife, three daughters and one son. THE dispute before the Prescribed Authority as well as before the learned Civil Judge was that one of the daughters of the petitioner Smt. Bimla Devi had been married and, therefore, she had ceased to be a member of the family of the petitioner. THE term 'family' has been defined in Section 3 (7) which in relation to a tenure holder means himself or herself and his wife or husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband) minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters). It would thus be seen that whereas an unmarried minor daughter is a member of the family of a tenure holder, a major or married daughter is not included therein. In the instant case, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that none of the two authorities gave any finding on the question that Smt. Bimla Devi was a major, that she had been married on the date of the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973. THE submission made appears to be correct. Before the learned Civil Judge, the point argued on behalf of the petitioner was that neither was Smt. Bimla Devi married before 8th June, 1973, on which date the U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973 came into force, nor was she major on the aforesaid date, and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to two additional hectares of land.