ORDER K.N. Seth, J. - A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to Radha Krishnaji Birajman Mandir. The main stand taken in the objection filed before the Prescribed Authority was that the land was held by the deities under a religious and charitable trust. It was further asserted that Radhaji and Krishna Ji were two separate deities and they were entitled to be treated as separate tenure-holders. The Prescribed Authority rejected the claim. On appeal, the learned Judge held that the endowment in question was for religious and charitable purposes and that no part of the income was for the benefit of the settler or any member of his family. The learned Judge allowed the appeal in part and sent back the case to the Prescribed Authority to determine the surplus area after deciding the question of application of the income of trust property afresh. 2. The endowment in question was created by one Sheo Sahai by a registered document dated 5-2-1947 in which Zamindari property held by him was endowed in favour of Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj. Sheo Sahai constituted himself as the first Sarvarakar and after his death his wife Smt. Mathuria was to be the Sarvarakar. No part of the income of the endowment was to be spent on the author of the endowment or the members of his family. Sheo Sahai died in 1950. His wife is also dead. They left behind no issues. 3. As noted earlier, the Appellate Authority has recorded a finding that the endowment in question was for religious and charitable purposes and there was no indication that any part of the income was for the benefit of the settler or any other person. The question is whether land covered by the endowment is exempt from consideration in the proceeding under the Act. Section 6 provides: - "6 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure-holder, namely - (a) to (e) .................... Section 6 provides: - "6 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure-holder, namely - (a) to (e) .................... (f) land held from before the first day of May, 1959, by or under a public religious or charitable waqfs, trust endowment or institution the income from which is wholly utilised for religious or charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settlers or members of his family or his descendants; ....................." 4. Admittedly the endowment in question was created from before the 1st day of May, 1959. Since then the land is held by the deities under a public religious and charitable endowment. That is clear from the terms of the document also. Under the endowment, no part of the income of the endowment was reserved for the benefit wholly or partly of the settler or members of his family or his descendants. The endowment in question fully satisfies the test laid down in clause (f) quoted' above and consequently land held under the endowment had to be exempted from consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to the surplus land of the tenure-holder, namely, Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj. 5. Learned counsel for the State contended that clause (f) is attracted only in a case where the tenure-holder himself creates a waqf, trust or endowment which is of a public religious or charitable nature and since in the present case, the tenure-holder was not the creator or author of the endowment, clause (f) was not attracted. I find no merit in the contention. Section 6 (1) (f) is attracted where the land is held by the tenure-holder. The law does not require that endowment should be created by the tenure-holder himself. Its only requirement is that the land must be held by the tenure-holder under a public religious trust or endowment or institution. Land which was the subject matter of the endowment in the present case was, therefore, liable to be totally exempted from consideration. 6. The law does not require that endowment should be created by the tenure-holder himself. Its only requirement is that the land must be held by the tenure-holder under a public religious trust or endowment or institution. Land which was the subject matter of the endowment in the present case was, therefore, liable to be totally exempted from consideration. 6. On the finding recorded by the learned Judge it was not at all necessary to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the question of the application of the income of the trust property afresh. In the present case, there is no dispute that the settler and his wife died issue-less and, therefore, the question of the income of the endowment being spent wholly or partly for the benefit of the settler or members of his family or his descendants does not arise. Even if the income of the property is not properly maintained by the present trustees that would not be ground for denying the tenure-holder the benefit of the provisions contained in clause (f) to sub-section (1) of Section 6. 7. The second plea raised in the objection was that Radhaji and Krishnaji in whose favour the endowment was made were two separate deities and accordingly land vested in them half and half and the land covered by the endowment could not be treated as held by one tenure-holder. This contention finds support from the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 20th September, 1978 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 225 of 1076 State of U. P. v. Swami Radha Krishna. I do not consider it necessary to discuss in detail this contention as the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the point discussed earlier. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30-9-1976 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 14-2-1077 are quashed. Notice issued to the petitioners under Section 10 (2) is discharged. Parties shall bear their own costs.