Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition is directed against order dated 16.4.1987 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in appeal No. 4/86-87 under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “1960 Act”) dismissing appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 25.2.1986 of Prescribed Authority, Bhogaon Mainpuri rejecting objection of petitioner against declaration of 8.22 acres of irrigated land as surplus.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the dispute in the present case may be given as under.

3. Rao Balbhadra Singh was the grand father of petitioner who had two sons namely Rao Mahesh Singh and Vir Bhadra Singh. Rao Mahesh Singh had two sons i.e. petitioner-Krishna Pratap Singh (since deceased) (his legal heir as substituted in the writ petition) and Sri Madho Narain Singh. A notice under Section 10(2) of 1960 Act was issued by Prescribed Authority to Rao Mahesh Singh proposing to declare 8.22 acres of land surplus in respect to plot No. 1295. The Prescribed Authority found tenure holder possessing total 26.26 acres of irrigated land hence he declared 8.22 acres of irrigated land as surplus.

4. The petitioner- Krishna Pratap Singh, who was not issued notices, filed objection that land in question was ancestral and therefore 1/3rd of land each should have been allowed to the two sons of Rao Mahesh Singh which has been omitted and had the said share of petitioner and his brother would have been allowed, there would not have been any surplus land. Copy of the said objection is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

5. The aforesaid objection was rejected by Prescribed Authority on 17.7.1979 whereagainst appeal was also dismissed by District Judge, Mainpuri on 20.8.1979. The petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 10308 of 1979 which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.11.1980 observing that rejection of objection filed by petitioner on the ground that same was not entertainable was incorrect and Prescribed Authority ought to have considered the same on merits. This Court also observed when Prescribed Authority had rejected objection summarily on the ground of entertainability, the Appellate Court had no occasion to enter into the merits on the issue and hence matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority.

6. Consequently, it was re-considered by Prescribed Authority and vide order dated 25.2.1986 it had rejected the objections of petitioner and his brother Madho Narain Singh whereagainst the petitioner filed appeal which has been rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 16.4.1987.

7. Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate submitted that petitioner being son of Rao Balbhadra Singh was entitled for 1/3rd share of land which was ancestral and this aspect having not been considered by Courts below, they have committed patent error. He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra and others v. Commissioner & Director of Consolidation, Meerut, 1970 RD 283 and Single Judge judgment in Rajeshwar Pratap Sahi v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur and others, 1998 (2) AWC 856.

8. It is no doubt true that if holding is ancestral and belong to joint Hindu family, the sons constituting joint Hindu family and coparcenary with the father were intermediaries of the land in question. They would also form proprietors alongwith father of the zamindari property, and the Khudkasht land belonging to the joint Hindu family and coparcenary for the reason that land in such case belong to the joint Hindu family and the sons therefore constitute co-sharers in the Khudkast. This view has been taken by Division bench in Ram Chandra and others (supra) and relevant observations in the judgment read as under :

“There cannot be also be any dispute that Ishwar Chand and Ashok Kumar were also proprietors alongwith Nanak, of the zamindari property, a