PURENDRA NARAIN TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner was a tenure holder and proceedings in order to determine the ceiling area applicable to him were drawn up. THE petitioner was aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority declaring certain land belonging to him to be surplus. THE petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed.

(3.) IT has been found by the learned District Judge that the petitioner had a son Rakesh who was a major. The District Judge refused to give the benefit of the two additional acres of land to the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to prove affirmatively that his son Rakesh had no agricultural land, or less than two hectares of agricultural land in his name. The provisions of Section 5 (3) (a) run as follows :