The determination of 'grove land' under Section 3 (8) of the Act should consider factors beyond the number of trees, and local inspection should be favored over oral evidence for such determinations.

M.B. Farooqui, J.

1. THE common question of law involved in these cases is, what is the true scope and effect of Section 3 (8) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

2. A similar question fell for consideration in Writ Petition No. 3308 of 1976, which was decided by me on 2nd August, 1978. Dealing with this point I have said ;-

"Section 3 (8) defines 'grove land' as meaning, 'any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including guava, papaya, banana or vine plants planted thereon before January 24, 1971, in such number that they preclude, or when fully grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose.' Thus the number of trees cannot be the sole index to the question whether a particular land is a grove land or not. One must also consider the age and development, kind and character of the trees and their impact, present and potential, on the land. These are all questions of fact to be determined on evidence."

Lest there should be any misunderstanding, let me make it clear that I should not be understood to have laid down that in deciding the question whether a particular land is a grove land or not, oral evidence will be admissible under Section 4-A of the Act. One may be tempted to ask : how else can the various aspects of grove land set out above be brought out if the records admissible under the said section are silent about them. It is not difficult to see how that can be done. Section 4-A inter alia, provides for local inspection. Perhaps the legislature had in view the difficulty like the one indicated above, when it provided that the Prescribed Authority shall make local inspection where it considers necessary to do so. It should not be impossible for the Prescribed Authority to make a local inspection in presence of the parties or their representative and, if necessary, with the aid of experts in order to bring out the various aspects of the grove land set out above. After all the Act is a piece of welfare legislation. Naturally the legislature was anxious that the proceeding taken under the Act should end sooner than later, but certainly not at the costs of fairness to the tenure holders. The legislature has, therefore, outlawed the traditional mode of proof by oral evidence and favoured the one by means of a local inspection. Given good sense, of which there can be no death in the Ceiling Authorities, it should be possible for the mode of proof by local inspection to serve the purpose more than the traditional one.

3. THE petitioners in the cases before me are co-owners of plot Nos. 643, 644, 685, 686 and 687 situate in village Sikandarpur. Their case was that these plots were actually grove land. THE Ceiling Authorities noticed the entries in the revenue records about the number of trees standing over these plots and concluded that the number of trees was not sufficient to bring these plots within the definition of grove land. On the principles stated above, the decision is obviously not sustainable and must be set aside.

4. THE result, therefore, is that these petitions are allowed. THE orders of the appellate Authority and the Prescribed Authority are set aside. THE Prescribed Authority is directed to redetermine the objection in accordance with the law keeping in view the observation made above. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.