The burden of proof lies on the tenure-holder to challenge the correctness of the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

N. D. Ojha, J.

1. THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Inspite of a general notice having been published in the official gazettee as contemplated by Section 9 of the Act the petitioner did not submit the return of his ceiling area in the form prescribed. Consequently the Prescribed Authority served the petitioner with a notice as contemplated by Section 10 (2) of the Act. The notice was accompanied with the requisite statement prepared under sub-section (1) thereof calling upon him to show cause within the period specified in the notice why the statement be not taken as correct. The petitioner filed an objection inter alia asserting that a sale deed executed by him on 5th February, 1972, in favour of one Smt. Shanti Devi had erroneously been ignored and that his land situated in village Rajpur was unirrigated and had erroneously been treated as irrigated. Both these pleas were repelled by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 14th October, 1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was dismissed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, on 15th July, 1975. Aggrieved he has instituted this writ petition.

2. THE two pleas referred to above which were raised by the petitioner in his objection and were repelled by the Prescribed Authority, had also been raised by him in the appeal and have been pressed before me in this writ petition. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed dated 5th February, 1972, had erroneously been ignored by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge and that the petitioner's land of village Rajpur has erroneously been determined as irrigated.

Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that there is no substance in either of the two submissions, in so far as the sale deed dated 5th February, 1972, is concerned the same having been executed after 24th January, 1971, had to be ignored in view of Section 5 (6) of the Act unless it was established to have been executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. The Additional Civil Judge in respect of the sale deed has pointed out that by virtue of the said sale deed not only 50 kachha bighas of land purported to have been sold for a sum of only Rs. 22,000/-, not a single shell out of the sale consideration had been paid before the Sub-Registrar. On the other hand it was stated in the sale deed that the entire consideration had been received earlier. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on an agreement said to have been executed by his mother Smt. Resham Kaur on 17th September, 1968, according to which the petitioner's mother had agreed to sell the land for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/-out of which she had received an advance of Rs. 10,000/- at the same time and it was settled that the balance of Rs. 12,000/- shall be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Inspite of the aforesaid stipulation in the agreement the sum of Rs. 12,000/- was not paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed, but that too was stated to have been received earlier. No documentary evidence was produced in proof of the receipt of the sale consideration at any rate of the sum of Rs. 12,000/- even if the agreement dated 17th September, 1968, was treated to comprise of the receipt for the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In regard to the agreement aforesaid the Additional Civil Judge pointed out that it was an unregistered document. In the circumstances of the case he took the view that no reliance could be placed on the said agreement. After considering the material on record the Additional Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the sale deed was executed without consideration and appeared to be a fictitious transaction made by the petitioner in order to save his skin from the consequences of the Act. The finding aforesaid recorded by the Additi