Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Ceiling proceedings were initiated and finalised against petitioner’s father Shanti Swaroop and it was held ithat Sri Shanti Swaroop did not possess any surplus land. An area of 16 Bigha 15 Biswancy land comprised in plot No. 762 to 772 belonging to the petitioner’s father was held to be grove land. Thereafter, father of the petitioner died and half of the agricultural land held by petitioner’s father was inherited by the petitioner. (Rest half was inherited by the other brother of the petitioner). Petitioner apart from inherited land of his father had some other agricultural land also. The State was of the opinion that the agricultural land already held by the petitioner and the agricultural land inherited by him from his father taken together exceeded the ceiling limit under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Accordingly notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. Prescribed Authority, Sardhana district Meerut before whom the case was registered as case No. 14 State v. Bhupendra Singh decided the matter on 1.5.1985 and held that petitioner did not possess any surplus