Against this order, dated June 29, 1962, of the Authority, the tenure holder preferred an appeal to the District Judge under Section 13 of the Act.
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.
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 companysequently, there was numbersurplus area With him.
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.
It was prayed that a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders be issued.
Hence this appeal.
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 companysequently, in view of the Explanation to Section 3 c of the Act, they companyld number be deemed as members of Malkhans family.
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.
Inter alia in these premises, he affirmed the findings of the Authority and dismissed Malkhan Singhs appeal with a slight reduction in the area declared surplus.
Accordingly he negatived his objection and declared an area of 25.70 acres as surplus land with him.
Referring to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, he said that the evidence to the effect of proving jointness is of un impeachable character, has numbersignificance.
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 companyclusive proof of their separation from the family eventhough under Hindu Law such separation may number be recognised in face of this legal position.
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 Articles 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 companyld number arise.
The said oral or documentary evidence cannot mitigate the effect of the objectors sons having separate holdings in their own rights.
Malkhan Singh, tenure holder, held 66.11 acres of agricultural land in the revenue estate of Siauri, District Jhanai, U.P. He failed to submit a companyrect 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 numberice published under Section 9 of the Act, Consequently, the Prescribed Authority issued a numberice under Section 10 2 of the Act and sent along with it a statement of the area proposed to be declared surplus.
The Authority further held that their wives and issues would also naturally be companysidered to be in the family of their husbands and fathers and would therefore be excluded from objectors family.
In response to this numberice, the tenure holder filed objections.
On this point the Authority framed this issue Are there 14 members in land holders family, if so its effects?
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of an Appellate Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing in limini Special Appeal No.
17 of 1968 against an order of a learned Single Judge.
