ORDER :- This writ petition arises from an order dated November 23, 1974 of the Prescribed Authority Koil, District Aligarh, and that dated July 30, 1975 of the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, on appeal therefrom under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Three points were urged before the learned Additional Civil Judge. The first point related to a sale deed dated October 27, 1971 in respect of 9 bighas of land out of plot No. 262 sold by the petitioner to Smt. Veervati and others for a consideration of Rs. 8,000 only. The next point related to plot No. 262 in respect of which it was contended that it was unirrigated but had wrongly been taken to be irrigated. The last point related to Plot No. 104 which was said to be a grove.

2. Mr. B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the order of the Prescribed Authority was bad for it contained no reasons for the findings recorded by him and that the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge was no better.

3. With regard to the first point about the sale deed, the Prescribed Authority only observed that the transfer was made after January 24, 1971 and the learned Additional Civil Judge has only said that he was unable to accept the petitioner s contention that the transfer was made in good faith and for adequate consideration, for the reason that it was made after January 24, 1971 and that the consideration was on its face, inadequate and there was no convincing evidence to the effect that there was any genuine need to sell the land. The learned Additional Civil judge has, thus, recorded the necessary findings, namely, that the sale was not made in good faith and the consideration was inadequate but the learned counsel attacked the finding as vitiated in law on the ground that the learned Civil Judge did not consider the evidence on the record.

Except for the contentions raised by the petitioner that the sale deed was executed in good faith and for adequate consideration under an irrevocable instrument of transfer as he needed money for the marriage of his granddaughter which was solemnised in October, 1971, the precise evidence which is said to have been ignored by the learned Additional Civil Judge has not been pointed out or set out in the writ petition. The learned Additional Civil Judge has observed that there was no convincing evidence in support of the need to sell the land and with regard to the adequacy of consideration he has observed that the amount of Rs. 8,000 was on its face inadequate for 27 kachcha bighas of land. Under the circumstances, I am unable to find on the face of the record any error of law or of jurisdiction, such as to vitiate the finding of the learned Additional Civil Judge on this point.

4. With regard to the next point about the remaining area of Plot No. 262 being unirrigated, the point does not appear to have been considered by the Prescribed Authority. The learned Additional Civil Judge has, however, observed on this point that the khasras for 1377F, 1378F and 1380F show that the plot was irrigated from a canal and both Kharif and Rabi crops were produced in the plot, hence, it was rightly treated as irrigated by the Prescribed Authority. The learned counsel contended that the plot was in the bed of a river and the revenue entries were prima facie wrong and that his prayer for local inspection was refused. The determination of irrigated area of the land has to be made in accordance with S. 4-A of the Act. That section makes the khasras of 1378F, 1379F and 1380F relevant for purposes of determining the irrigated area and also enjoins upon the Prescribed Authority to make a local inspection wherever necessary. How the Prescribed Authority is supposed to prepare the statement of ceiling area after determination of the irrigated area in accordance with the principles and procedure laid down by S. 4-A of the Act. This does not appear to have been done and when the petitioner contended that the whole o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document