COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 466/2001 (Old No. 8634 of 1994) Bahadur Singh …….Petitioner Versus Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Mandal, Nainital & Others. …….Respondents Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2. 12th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.4.1986 and the order dated 20.1.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Division, Nainital. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner possessed the total area of 28.16 acres of land and is the tenure-holder of the land in dispute. Petitioner received a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as to why an area of 12.64 acres be not declared surplus. Petitioner filed his objection. The objection, inter alia, raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner had his wife and three major sons and five daughters, two of them were married. Petitioner accordingly claimed that three major sons of the petitioner were entitled to 6 hectares of land. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 25.4.1986, 2 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner possessed 12.64 acres of excess land which was liable to be taken as surplus land. 3. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) vide his order dated 20.1.1994, which is contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. 4. Petitioner had taken the plea before the courts below that he had five daughters and four sons out of which three sons were major and claimed that his three major sons were entitled to 6 hectares of land. Sub- section (7) of Section 3 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act defines the ‘family’ as under: “family in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters).” 5. Further sub-section (11-A) to Section 3 of the Act says that ‘Adult’ means a persons who has attained the age of 18 years, and ‘Minor’ means a person who is not an adult. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority reveals that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner has not been properly adjudicated and, therefore, impugned orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. 3 6. Therefore, writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 25.4.1986 and 20.1.1994 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority with direction to take evidence on the point of major and minor and give the correct finding in this regard based on evidence and accordingly if they are entitled for any land, that may be exempted from the surplus area to be declared from the tenure holdings of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 12.8.2008 Prabodh