JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of an Appellate Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing in limine Special Appeal No. 17 of 1968 against an order of a learned Single Judge.

2. Malkhan Singh, tenure-holder, held 66.11 acres of agricultural land in the revenue estate of Siauri, District Jhansi, U. P. He failed to submit a correct statement in respect of his holdings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, the Act), within the time mentioned in the notice published under Section 9 of the Act. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and sent along with it a Statement of the area proposed to be declared surplus. In response to this notice, the tenure-holder filed objections. One of his pleas was that there were 14 members in his family including his sons, grand-sons and grand-daughters and all of them were joint in home, hearth and estate, and that consequently, there was no surplus area with him. On this point the Authority framed this issue:

"Are there 14 members in land-holder s family, if so its effects?"

3. The Authority found that the four sons of Malkhan Singh, namely, Murari Lal, Lakhan Lal, Kishan Lal and Ganeshi Lal, were tenure-holders in their own separate rights, and consequently, in view of the Explanation to Section 3 (c) of the Act, they could not be deemed as members of Malkhan s family. The Authority further held that "their wives and issues would also naturally be considered to be in the family of their husbands and fathers and would therefore be excluded from objector s family". After excluding the sons and their wives and sons sons, the Authority held that there were only two members of the family of Malkhan Singh who were alive on January 3, 1961. Accordingly he negatived his objection and declared an area of 25.70 acres as surplus land with him.

4. Against this order, dated June 29, 1963 of the Authority the tenure-holder preferred an appeal to the District Judge under Section 13 of the Act. On this issue, the District Judge also held that the four sons of Malkhan Singh were tenure-holders in their own separate rights, and in view of the definition of the term family in the Act, this circumstance was conclusive proof of their separation from the family "even though under Hindu Law such separation may not be recognised in face of this legal position". Referring to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, he said:

"that the evidence to the effect of proving jointness is of unimpeachable character, has no significance. The said oral or documentary evidence cannot mitigate the effect of the objector s sons having separate holdings in their own rights."

5. Inter alia in these premises, he affirmed the findings of the Authority and dismissed Malkhan Singh s appeal with a slight reduction in the area declared surplus.

6. To impugn the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Malkhan Singh and his three sons filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. They attacked the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act and the orders on the ground that they were violative of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) (g) and 31 (2) of the Constitution. It was further alleged that the impugned decision was based on surmises and presumptions which could not arise. It was prayed that a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders be issued.

7. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge and that decision was affirmed by the appellate Bench of the High Court on May 14, 1968. Hence this appeal.

8. Mr. Dixit, counsel for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection that this appeal has become infructuous, if not abated, in view of Section 19 (1) of the U. P. (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1973, which came into force during the pendency of this appeal. Mr. Dixit s argument is that the words "any 445 court or authority" in