Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the Rural Ceiling Act) dated 7.12.1989 and the order dated 16.12.2002 passed in Appeal No. 109/278/18/G-1990 of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur.

2. Heard Mr H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr K.M. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Pradeep Kumar, who has filed an impleadment application on behalf of the allottees of the land declared surplus with regard to proposed respondent Nos. 6 to 13, and Mr Aditya Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate arguing on the merits of the case has pointed out that the notice under Section 10(2) of the Rural Ceiling Act was issued on 12.11.1974 proposing to leave 18.02 acres of land with the petitioner and declaring 47.59 acres of land as surplus irrigated land. Later on, an amended notice was issued on 3.5.1976 under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, by which after leaving 18.02 acres irrigated land with the petitioner it was proposed to declare 50.72 acres as surplus irrigated land.

4. On receipt of notice, the petitioner preferred objections, but the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 7.12.1989, rejected the objections by negativing all the pleas raised by the petitioner without examining them carefully. The objections preferred by the petitioner have been summarized by the learned Senior counsel as follows:

5. The Prescribed Authority ignored that 1.94 acres of land had been gifted to the temple of Hanuman Ji in the year 1946 by a registered gift deed and as such the same land was liable to be excluded from the Agricultural holding of the petitioner.

This objection was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the petitioner was not only the trustee of the private trust, but he was also the Sarbarakar/Manager of the land gifted to the Deity.

According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the said observations made by the Prescribed Authority are clearly erroneous in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass v. Prescribed (Ceiling) Konch, District Jalaun, 1979 ALJ 105, wherein this Court held that the tenure-holder being the deity, the land held by the deity should not be clubbed with the land held by the Manager of the trust. A deity being recognised as a separate juristic person, its property could not be included in the total area of land held by the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the fact that in the objections, the petitioner had also given evidence that 8.70 acres of land belonged to Daya Nand and Krishna Nand and 3.34 acres belonged to one Ram Bachan Mishra, co-tenure holder alongwith the petitioner, and therefore this land could not have been included in the holding of the petitioner for calculation of ceiling area.

7. The Prescribed Authority in the order impugned has observed that with respect to land allegedly belonging to Daya Nand and Krishna Nand, no documentary evidence was provided by the petitioner and with respect to Sri Ram Bachan Mishra, who was co-tenure holder. It has been argued that the Prescribed Authority erroneously did not look into the land records, which would have established that Ram Bachan Mishra was the co-tenure holder alongwith the petitioner in 3.34 acres of land. In view of compromise decree in Suit No. 360 under Section 229(B) dated 24.11.1973 which was filed alongwith the evidence as documentary proof, the land of co-tenure holders could not have been clubbed alongwith the holding of the petitioner to determine surplus land.

8. It was also the case of the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority that Daya Nand and Krishna Nand had been gifted land