A finding on the question of minority is a finding of fact not liable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. THIS petition is directed against order passed by the Additional District Judge, Banda, under Sec. 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners are allottee of land which was declared surplus of respondent No. 8. It has been found that notice under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act was served on respondent No. 8 at a time when he was a minor without appointment of any guardian for him. On this finding the exparte order passed against him has been set aside and the prescribed authority has been directed to decide the objection of respondent No. 8 on merits.

2. IT has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding of minority is vitiated as the District Judge did not consider the oral evidence. The learned counsel emphasizes that as the District Judge was reversing the order passed by prescribed authority, it was incumbent upon him to discuss each and every piece of evidence and as he has based his finding only on school certificate, the order should be quashed and he should be directed to decide the appeal afresh.

Having given careful consideration to the argument raised by the learned counsel, it appears to be devoid of any substance. A finding on question of minority is a finding of fact. In arriving at this finding, the appellate authority has considered the date of birth shown in the school register, entries in revenue extracts and the report of Supervisor Kanoongo, endorsed by the Tehsildar. It may be that if in recording this finding the appellate authority would have considered the oral evidence, it would have been much better. But the finding recorded on some evidence is nonetheless a finding of fact which is not liable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner is only allottee. He does not suffer from the order passed by the appellate authority. In fact, any person could be considered to be aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, it was the State, but the State having not filed any writ petition, the petition on behalf of the allottes is misconceived.

3. LEARNED counsel for petitioner further argued that the objection filed by the petitioners was not maintainable as on two occasions he exercised the choice and, therefore, it was not open to him to file an application for setting aside of the ex-parte order. This argument is misconceived as it having been found that the petitioner was a minor and the notice was served on him without appointment of any guardian, the entire proceedings were void and the exercise of choice by petitioner did not operate as estoppel. Nor did it bar the opposite party from filing an application for setting aside of the exparte order on the ground that notice served on him was illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.