BIRENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the ceiling authorities have declared 7.09 sq. metres as surplus land in excess of the ceiling limit held by petitioner no. 1. Aggrieved by the judgments of the Ceiling Authorities the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the house in question was purchased by petitioner no. 1 with the fund provided by his father. THErefore, the house in question was the property of a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of his wife, two daughters and a son named, Ravindra Saxena, who is petitioner no. 2 in this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ceiling authorities have patently erred in treating the disputed house as the property of petitioner no. 1 alone and erred in law in not holding the same as the property of a Hindu Undivided Family. It has also been emphasised that the evidence on record has been misappreciated and misunderstood by the ceiling authorities in calculating the surplus area held by the petitioners.

(3.) AFTER considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, I think that the Appellate Authority has not approached the problem from correct angle with the result it has erred in confirming the judgment of the Competent Authority.