JUDGMENT : R.R. Rastogi, J. Maharaj Singh Adarsh Vidyalay Khagwali Thoi, Tahsil Roorkee is an institution which is running two educational institutions, one, a Junior High School and the other a Primary Basic School. The education is imparted free in these schools and even some financial help is given to the poor and needy students. The source of income is from agricultural land which was donated by the villagers under the Bhudan movement. In terms of irrigated land the total area of the land held by this institution is 424 bighas. It has got a Committee of Management. The entire income from the agricultural land is being spent on the maintenance and running of the aforesaid two educational institutions. 2. The institution was served with a notice u/s 10(2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Pursuant to that notice it filed objections, one of the objections being that since the institution was a public Charitable institution and its entire income was being utilized for charitable purposes, it was exempt u/s 6(1)(f) of the Act. In support of this contention a large number of witnesses were examined by the institution as also documentary evidence was given. The Prescribed Authority, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the institution is a charitable institution imparting free education to the students and the entire income derived by it from the agricultural land recorded in its name is being utilized for the aforesaid purpose. It is, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The notice was, hence, discharged. This order was passed on June 29, 1976. The State preferred an appeal against that order which has been decided by the IV Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, vide his judgment dated 6-12-1977. The learned District Judge has not disturbed the aforesaid findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. However, according to him the institution cannot take the benefit of Section 6(1)(f) of the Act because the institution-tenure holder itself is a religious and charitable institution and it would not be covered by the aforesaid provision. Since the Prescribed Authority had not decided the other contentions raised on behalf of the institution the appellate. Court has remitted the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision of the same. Since the Prescribed Authority had not decided the other contentions raised on behalf of the institution the appellate. Court has remitted the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision of the same. This order forms the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition filed by the institution. 3. It has been submitted before me on behalf of the Petitioner that the interpretation put by the appellate court on the provision contained in Section 6(1)(f) of the Act is erroneous in law. I am inclined to agree with him. It is correct that the Petitioner-institution is not covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act but as regards Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 the position is different. This provision reads: 6. Exemption of certain land from the imposition of Ceiling-(1) Notwithstanding any thing 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 surplus land of a tenure-holder, namely, (f) land held from before the 1st day of May, 1959, by or under a public religious or charitable waqf, trust, endowment, or institution the income from which is wholly utilized 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. In the present case, as noted above, the institution was constituted sometime in 1957. it is running two public schools where education is imparted free to the students and even financial help is given to poor and needy students The property held by the institution under trust consists of agricultural land which was donated to it by the villagers under the Bhudan scheme. It has also been found that the entire income derived by the institution from this agricultural land is being utilized for the aforesaid purposes. It is, thus, a public charitable institution and the entire income derived by this institution from the aforesaid land is being wholly utilized by it for charitable purposes. This institution has got a Committee of Management. It is not a trust of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are the members of the committee or members of their family. It is, thus, a public charitable institution and the entire income derived by this institution from the aforesaid land is being wholly utilized by it for charitable purposes. This institution has got a Committee of Management. It is not a trust of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are the members of the committee or members of their family. I do not think that it makes any difference that such land is held by the tenure holder itself which is a public charitable trust. The position is that for purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to the institution-tenure holder when it is found that the land held by it is entirely under a public charitable trust and its income is being wholly utilized for charitable purposes, then this entire land is to be exempted from the operation of this Act. On this view of the matter the Prescribed Authority had rightly discharged the notice and the view to the contrary taken by the appellate Court is erroneous in law. 5. The petition, hence, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 6th December, 1977, is quashed. No order is made as to costs.