( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Tandon dismissing a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) BABU Ram, the appellant, was declared elected Pradhan of Gram Sabha Rutha as a result of an election held in 1955. Himmat Gir, respondent No. 3, filed an election petition before the sub-Divisional Officer and challenged the appellants election on the ground that he was less than thirly years of age at the time of his election to the office of Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional officer found on the basis of evidence before him that the appellant was actually less than thirty years of age at the time of his nomination and consequently allowed the election petition, set aside the election of the appellant and declared Himmat Gir to be the duly eletced Pradhan of village Rutha. The appellant then filed the writ petition and prayed for the quashing of this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer.

( 3 ) THE grounds against the correctness of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer were, firstly, that no question of improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination arose when no objection to the nomination of the appellant was taken at the time of the scrutiny of nomination papers and, secondly, that the question of the appellant being not qualified to be chosen a Pradhan on account of his being less than thirty years of age had to be decided by the prescribed authority, that is the Tahsildar, in view or the provisions of Section 6-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 194y read with Rule 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules. The other grounds mentioned in the petition dealt with the correctness of the entries relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the admissibility in evidence of the documents considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. They also challenged the propriety of declaring Himmat Gir to be the duly elected candidate. They did not however include the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had to accept the record of age in the village family register as correct -- a point which was raised before the learned fudge and which alone had been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge held that Himmat Gir had challenged the election of the appellant not on title ground of the improper acceptance of his nomination but on the ground that there had been a gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act inasmuch as a person less than thirty years of age had been allowed to be chosen Pradhan of the Gram Sabha in contravention of the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act. He repelled the contentions that the Sub-Divisional Officer was bound to accept the entry about age in the family register as correct and that the sub-Divisional Officer was not competent to decide an objection coming within the purview of section 6-A of the Act.

( 5 ) THE question whether the Sub-Divisional Officer can decide on an election petition objections which would otherwise come under Section 6-A of the Act has been recently decided by this court in Amar Nath Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer Gyanpur, Special Appeal No. 424 of 1958. It has been held that the Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to decide such objections. This question was not therefore pressed at the hearing of the appeal.

( 6 ) THE first point argued for the appellant is that the entries about age in the family register must be accepted as correct by the Sub-Divisional Officer in view of the fact that Rule 5 (2) of the panchayat Raj Rules gives a finality to the register republished after the amendments made in accordance with Sub-rule (1 ). We do not agree with this contention.

( 7 ) SECTION 5 of the Act provides that a Gaon Sabha shall consist of all adults ordinarily resident within the area for which it is established and lays down certain disqualifications for membership of the Gaon Sabha. Section 5-A lays down disqualifications for holding office under the Gaon sabha or the Nyaya Panchayat. Section 5-B is