ORDER

K.C. Agarwal, J. - These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been preferred one by Ajit Singh and others and the other by the State of U.P., against the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, Rampur, given in Ceiling Appeals Nos. 33 and 57 of 1981 on 20th October, 1981.

2. A notice under S. 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given to the Trust the Sciende Horse Farm (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) in respect of 591 acres irrigated land in villages Phoolpur, Bichhyee and Bighta in Tehsil Bilaspur, district Rampur. The notice proposed to declare 573 acres land as surplus. The Trust preferred an objection, inter alia, claiming that as it was charitable Trust, it was entitled to exemption under S. 6(1)(f) of the Act. The relevant portion of this provision reads as under :

"6(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus and of a tenure-holder, namely

(a) to (e) ..........

(f) land held from before the first day of May, 1959, by or under a public religious or charitable waqf, trust, endowment, or institution the income from which is wholly utilised for religious or charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settlors or members of his family or his descendants."

3. The trust claimed that it was wholly charitable Trust for the benefit and welfare of the Jawans and officers of Scinde Horse Regiment whether serving or retired and for pensions aid, and educational grants to the disabled and the deceased Ex-servicemen and their dependants.

4. Ajit Singh and others moved an application for being impleaded as a party in these proceedings and alleged that they were in possession of the land sought to be declared as surplus and as they had acquired sirdari rights but having been in adverse possession over more than 12 years, the proceedings regarding those plots taken under S. 10 were liable to be dropped.

5. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioners and also confirmed the statement issued to the Trust under sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the Trust preferred an appeal which was appeal No. 102 of 1977 in the Court of the District Judge, Rampur.

6. Ajit Singh and others filed two writ petitions 667 of 1967 and 819 of 1977 challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting their applications for impleadment. The writ petitions were allowed on 10-2-1978 and the order of the Prescribed Authority on the two applications of the petitioners were quashed. The Prescribed Authority was directed to implead the petitioners in the proceedings and decide the case afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment. The High Court further directed that the copy of the judgment be sent to the District Judge for bringing it to the notice of the Additional District Judge in whose court the appeal preferred by the Trust was pending.

7. Consequent upon the judgment of the High Court, the District Judge allowed the appeal of the trust and sent the case back to the Prescribed Authority for decision on merits after impleading the petitioners as had been directed by the High Court.

8. After remand the Trust did not produce any evidence and was content with the evidence already adduced by it. Ajit Singh and others in addition to the documentary. evidence produced the following witnesses :

1. Kapoor Singh,

2. Birsa Singh, and

3. Ajit Singh.

The Trust has produced Brig. Harbans Singh. omits behalf on 29th December, 1976. On the case being remanded, the petitioners did not apply for his cross-examination.

9. The Prescribed Authority held that trust being not covered by S. 6(1)(f) was not entitled to its benefit. He, however, did not find