MAHANT BHAGWAN DAS Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CEILING KONCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are these: The Petitioner was issued the usual notice under Section 10(2) of the said Act and he filed the objections. The objections were disposed off by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the Petitioner went up in appeal to the appellate court below. The State also felt aggrieved with a part of the order of the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, it also went up in appeal to the said court. Both the appeals were disposed off by one common judgment by the appellate court. The appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed but that of the State was partly allowed. Now, the Petitioner has come up in the instant petition and his learned counsel, Shri M.C. Dwivedi, has raised the following submissions before me.

(3.) IN my opinion, this provision clearly shows that a private trust is to be treated as a separate tenure -holder and the land held by such trust should not be clubbed or amalgamated with the land held by the trustee or the manager of the trust in his own individual capacity. 'Tenure -holder' has been defined in Section 3(17) in these words: