R.C. Srivastava, J.@mdashA notice u/s 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was served on the Petitioner. He filed an objection. One of the pleas raised in the objection was that strength of the Petitioner''s family members was seven and hence he was entitled for a benefit of additional land on that account. The Prescribed Authority repelled the contention of the Petitioner and held the strength of the family members to be six. The Petitioner then went up in appeal. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the authorities below have ignored the material evidence of the Petitioner and have decided the case on the basis Of inadmissible evidence.
3. The main controversy involved in the present writ petition is whether Rama Devi, the daughter of the Petitioner, was married or not. If she was married, she could not be included in the family of the Petitioner and if she was not married, the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit.
4. In order to establish his contention, the Petitioner examined himself and also a witness who stated that Kama Devi was not married. He also filed documents including a copy of Kutumb register to prove his claim. State of U.P. examined the Lekhpal as also the Panchayat Secretary. The Prescribed Authority preferred to place reliance on the testimony of the Lekhpal and the Panchayat Secretary and repelled the contention of the Petitioner. The appellate authority also affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority relying on the testimony of the Panchayat Secretary and the Lekhpal.
5. The judgment of the authorities below on the question of strength of the Petitioner''s family members cannot be sustained. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the evidence of the Lekhpal and the Panchayat Secretary is wholly inadmissible. The Lekhpal was examined on oath in the year 1976. He admitted that he was posted there three years back, that is, he reached there somewhere in 1973. He said that Rama Devi was married in 1972. Admittedly he could not have personal knowledge about the marriage. He also admitted that he was informed about the marriage by the village people and he had no personal knowledge of the same. Similarly, the Panchayat Secretary, examined on behalf of the State, also admitted that he was posted there only a year back, that is, he came there in the year 1975. He also admitted that he was informed about the marriage of Rama Devi by the villagers. He also admitted that he did not correct the entries made in the Panchayat register. The entire evidence adduced on behalf of the State was either in-admissible or hearsay and could not form the basis of arriving at a conclusion that Rama Devi was married. The evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner was of the Petitioner himself and of a witness. This evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner was not at all taken into consideration by the authorities below merely on the ground that the evidence was interested as the Petitioner was himself a party to the suit. This could not be a ground for rejecting the evidence of the Petitioner. Apart from it, the evidence of the father can be said to be the best piece of evidence with regard to date of marriage of his daughter or son. It has been held by this Court in
6. The result is that this writ petition is partly allowed and the judgments Of the Prescribed Authority and the ''appellate authority in respect of strength of the Petitioner''s family members treating as six are hereby quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to recalculate the surplus area treating the strength of the Petitioner''s family members as seven. The other findings recorded by the authorities below are hereby confirmed. In view of part success, the parties shall bear their own costs. The stay order shall stand discharged.
