JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. On 16.9.83 I had disposed of the writ petition by the following order:

For the reasons to be recorded later, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, is vacated. There will, be, however, no order as to costs.

3. I now proceed to give my reasons.

4. One Musharraf Ali was the original tenure holder to whom a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued, by which he was required the show cause why an area of 5.452 acres (in terms of irrigated land) be not declared as surplus. Musharraf Ali filed objection in which it was, inter alia, pleaded that an area of 18. 122 acres of land, which was recorded in the name of Smt. Hashmatun Nisa, could not be clubbed with the land standing in his name as she was no longer his wife, she having been divorced by him in the year 1970.

5. An objection of a similar nature was also filed separately by Smt. Hashmatun Nisa,. She pleaded that the land, which was recorded in her name was in her exclusive possession. She also pleaded that she had been divorced by her husband, Musharraf Ali, in the year 1970, and, therefore, the land standing in her name, had been wrongly included in the holding of Musharraf Ali.

6. Musharraf Ali and Smt. Hashmatun Nisa produced oral evidence before the Prescribed Authority. They also filed the original deed of divorce dated 7270.

7. The Prescribed Authority rejecte the objection by his order dated 27975 (Annexure1).

8. Musharraf Ali and Smt. Hashmatun Nisa challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority in appeal before the District Judge, who dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 19776.

9. Musharraf Ali, then, filed writ petition No. 2269 of 1976, in this Court. Readied during the pendency of the writ petition and was substituted by the present petitioner sons 1 to 3. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 15th July, 1981. The judgment passed by the District Judge, was quashed with a direction to decide the appeal afresh. The operative portion of the above judgment may be reproduced below:

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the District Judge dated 19776 (Annexure 6) is quashed. He is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the question as to whether Hashmatun Nisa was divorced by Musharraf Ali before the relevant date. It is only after deciding this question that he may decide the question of law involved in this case.

After remand, the District Judge heard the appeal afresh and decided it by the impugned, judgment dated 11281 which is contained in Annexure 8. The appeal was dismissed with a finding that Smt. Hashmatun Nisa, who is petitioner No. 4 in the present petition, was not divorced by Musharraf Ali on the alleged date.

10. The petitioners have now filed the present writ petition.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

12. The only point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Smt. Hashmatun Nisa had been validly divorced by her husband Musharraf Ali by a pronouncement of Talaq in writing and, therefore, on 7th February, 1970, the date on which the deed of divorce was written, Smt. Hashmatun Nisa (Petitioner No. 4) ceased to be the wife pf Musharraf Ali. The land standing in the name of Smt. Hashmatun Nisa, could not, therefore, have been legally included in the holding of Musharraf Ali particularly as, after the pronouncement of divorce, she had ceased to be the member of Musharraf Ali's family. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the manner in which the divorce was pronounced, was permissible under the Mohammedan Law and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority as also the District Judge were bound to give effect to that divorce.

13. There are two facets of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, (i) the findings of