JANKI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice Under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was served on the Petitioner. He filed an objection. One of the pleas raised in the objection was that strength of the Petitioner's family members was seven and hence he was entitled for a benefit of additional land on that account. The Prescribed Authority repelled the contention of the Petitioner and held the strength of the family members to be six. The Petitioner then went up in appeal. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the authorities below have ignored the material evidence of the Petitioner and have decided the case on the basis Of inadmissible evidence.

(3.) The main controversy involved in the present writ petition is whether Rama Devi, the daughter of the Petitioner, was married or not. If she was married, she could not be included in the family of the Petitioner and if she was not married, the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit.