ORDER

M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and certified copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29-5-1976 has been appended to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 1. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jalaun at Orai by his Judgment dated January 29, 1977 and a certified copy whereof has been annexed to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 2. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri R. B. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made submissions.

3. Sri Mehrotra, contended that the finding recorded by the Ceiling Authority in respect of the non-existence of a minor daughter on 8th June, 1973 was legally erroneous. The learned counsel in this connection contended that the certified copy of the Kutumbh Register should have been relied upon by the authorities below and that it was wrongly discarded on the ground that it was issued by the Pradhan of of the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel contended that the certified copy under the rules was bound to be issued by the Pradhan and therefore, the same was no ground for discarding the probative value of the said document. Learned counsel next contended that the State merely relied on the statement of the Lekhpal, whose statement was ih the nature of hearsay. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following cases:

Bujhawan Singh v. Smt. Shyama Debi (AIR 1964 Pat 301); Parashu Ram Tiwari v. Bhanu Pratap Tiwari (1974 RD 176) (All) wherein it has been laid down that the entries in a Birth and Death register are public documents and are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act,

4. The learned counsel in this connection also drew my attention to the rules contained in Chapter 1 (b) which prescribes the manner and the mode in which the register of the members of the Goan Sabha is to be maintained. It should be seen that these rules are at present those which are described as U. P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 and they were issued by notification Number 6534-B/XXXIII-59-69 dated 5th June, 1970. Formerly, there was another set of rules contained in Chapter 1 (b). The learned counsel also placed reliance on Sections 74, 75, 76, 77, 79 and 114 of the Evidence Act.

5. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel contended that in the writ jurisdiction this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding which was recorded by the Ceiling Authority and which is a pure finding of fact based on the appraisal of the evidence on record. He also invoked in his support the two cases on which reliance was placed by the lower appellate court and which are Ram Baran v. Nurul Haq (1959 RD 82) and Babu Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959 RD 144).

6. It should be seen that the controversy in the instant case was about the date of birth of the daughter in dispute. The prescribed Authority emphasised that no independent evidence, which could be relied on, was forthcoming in support of the petitioners contention that she was born in 1967. In this connection the Prescribed Authority pointed out that there was contradiction in the evidence which was led on behalf of the petitioner. D. W. 5 Ganga Singh stated that the daughter was born in 1971, whereas the family register purported to show that the daughter was born in 1967. The testimony of the Pradhan was not relied on because he was held to have been guilty of having prepared a fake horoscope of one Narendra, who was claimed to be the major son by the petitioner on the material date i.e. 8th June 1973. The said contention was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and in this connection