ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are thus. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. He filed objections which were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor. The appeal was dismissed. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri G. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has moved an application purporting to do so under O. 6 R. 17 C.P.C. whereby permission has been sought to add certain paragraph in the petition and to add ground No. 6 to the petition. The addition is sought on the ground which is stated in these words in the amendment application: "That the petitioner is the tenure-holder of 95 Bighas of plot No. 37 situate in village Inchawal District Bijnor while the petitioners wife Smt. Vidya Wati is also the tenure holder of another area of 95 Bighas of plot No. 37 situated in village Inchawala, District Bijnor. The petitioner as also his wife Smt. Vidya Wati are the members of the Ganga Inchawala Sahkari Kheti Samiti Ltd., Gsnga Inchawala, Pargana Mandawar, Tahasil and District Bijnor and their entire land is pooled in the above Co-operative Society. The land of the above Co-operative Society is pooled with the District Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Bijnor and a sum of Rs. 1,32,487.00 is due against the above Society which is payable to the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor. True copy of the certificate issued by the District Co-operative Bank Ld. dated 31-8-1978 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure I to the accompanying affidavit". 3. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 12 (A) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 which lays down as under :- 12-A. Right of a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property. dated 31-8-1978 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure I to the accompanying affidavit". 3. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 12 (A) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 which lays down as under :- 12-A. Right of a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a bank shall have power to itself acquire any land or interest therein or any other immovable property which has been charged or mortgaged to it by an agriculturist in respect of any financial assistance granted to him. (2) Where a bank acquires any land or interest therein or any other immovable property under sub-section (1), it shall dispose of such land, interest or property by sale in favour of an agriculturist within a time to be prescribed, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force (3) If the bank has to lease out any land acquired by it under sub-section (1), pending sale thereof as indicated in subsection (2), the period of lease shall not exceed one year at a time, and the lessee shall not acquire any interest in that property, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force". 4. This section was inserted by the U. P. Agricultural Credit (Amendment) Ordinance. 1975, w.e.f. Jan. 25, 1975. In my view the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived. It is not necessary to go into the question whether Section 12-A will really apply to the facts of the instant case. However, even if it were applicable, in my view the provision merely saves the right of a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force". In other words the bank may Contend (it is not necessary to examine whether the said contentions will be legally correct or not) that despite the ceiling law the charge or mortgage in its favour shall remain enforceable and in the enforcement of that charge or mortgage, it will have the power to acquire the land charged or mortgaged. In other words the bank may Contend (it is not necessary to examine whether the said contentions will be legally correct or not) that despite the ceiling law the charge or mortgage in its favour shall remain enforceable and in the enforcement of that charge or mortgage, it will have the power to acquire the land charged or mortgaged. However, so far as the tenure holder is concerned he cannot base any argument on Section 12-A. In this view of the matter this ; amendment application is fit to be rejected and reject it accordingly. I must also point out that there is really no reliable evidence which could have shown that the land in dispute in the petition is really mortgaged or charged. However, I would not say anything on that point because the bank is not before me and no observation of mine will in any manner affect the rights of any of the parties under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. 5. So far as the merit of the petition is concerned, the contention before tire appellate court, inter alia, was that certain land was Usar and the same was wrongly held to be not Usar. In my view, the authorities below were entitled to come to their own finding and the said finding is a pure finding of fact, in this writ jurisdiction I cannot interfere even if were to take a different view on the evidence on record in respect of the said controversy. 6. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.