JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition passed by Commissioner Kumaun Division and the Prescribed Authority/Upper Zila Adhikari Nainital respectively. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition are that a notice U/S 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, was served upon petitioner No.1 Autar Singh on 19-1-1989, who had filed the objection on 13-2-1989 that he is Bhumidhar of Khata No.2 area 139 Bighas and 13 Biswa and on the land of Khata No. 38 area 76 Bighas 16 Biswa, Smt. Ratan Kaur widow of late Sri Santa Singh was recorded tenure holder. The said Smt. Ratan Kaur had adopted the petitioner No.2 Lakhmir Singh, who was natural son of petitioner No.1 Autar Singh. It was further alleged in the objection that after the death of Smt. Ratan Kaur, Lakhmir Singh became the owner of the land of Smt. Ratan Kaur and the land of Lakhmir Singh inherited by him from Smt. Ratan Kaur has wrongly been clubbed with the land of petitioner No.1 Autar Singh, since Lakhmir Singh is no longer member of the family of Autar Singh. It was further alleged in the objection that since late Smt. Ratan Kaur was not having son from her husband late Sri Santa Singh, therefore she adopted petitioner No.2 and also executed a will on 4.1.1982 in favour of her adopted son. This fact has also been mentioned specifically in the will that the will is being executed in favour of her adopted son. It was also mentioned in the will that in the life time of her husband Santa Singh was also willing to adopt the son of Autar Singh, but unfortunately he had died therefore Smt. Ratan Kaur had adopted petitioner No.2 and executed the will in his favour. 3. The objections were rejected by the Prescribed Authority and treated minor Lakhmir Singh son of Autar Singh and clubbed the land of Autar Singh and Lakhmir Singh and the land mentioned in the impugned order dated 24-10-1989, was made surplus. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Kumaun Division Nainital. The objections were rejected by the Prescribed Authority and treated minor Lakhmir Singh son of Autar Singh and clubbed the land of Autar Singh and Lakhmir Singh and the land mentioned in the impugned order dated 24-10-1989, was made surplus. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Kumaun Division Nainital. The learned Commissioner did not find favour to the petitioner No.1 and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 31.3.1990, on the ground that adoption of Lakhmir Singh by Late Smt. Ratan Kaur was not proved by documentary evidence and in the will there is no mention that any adoption deed was ever executed and since Lakhmir Singh is a minor son of Autar Singh and Autar Singh is cultivating the land in the name of minor Lakhmir Singh, therefore the land in the name of Lakhmir Singh and Autar Singh have rightly been clubbed together and found surplus by the Prescribed Authority. 5. Aggrieved further, this writ petition has been preferred reiterating the facts mentioned in the objections filed before the Prescribed Authority. 6. The respondent/State filed counter affidavit and the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Commissioner have been supported and alleged that adoption of Lakhmir Singh by Smt. Ratan Kaur has not been proved. Rather on the basis of Will dated 4-1-1982 executed by Smt. Ratan Kaur in favour of minor Lakhmir Singh the land was mutated in the name of Lakhmir Singh. It is further alleged that Lakhmir Singh is the family member of petitioner No.1 Autar Singh, therefore, the land has been clubbed and order of surplus land has rightly been passed. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit and along with rejoinder affidavit copy of statement of Sri Shyam Singh S/o Hajara Singh has been filed as R.A.1. 8. The petitioner also filed supplementary affidavit and along with supplementary affidavit copies of impugned orders passed by Prescribed Authority as well as the Commissioner have been filed, besides the original Will executed by Smt. Ratan Kaur in favour of Lakhmir Singh, copy of Khautani relating to 1377 Fasli to 1393 Fasli and the copy of statement of petitioner Autar Singh. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. By a perusal of record of the petition, this fact is not disputed that the land which was inherited by Lakhmir Singh was the land of late Smt. Ratan Kaur widow of Late Santa Singh. This fact is also not disputed that ceiling proceedings were initiated against petitioner Autar Singh pertaining to his own land. The notice U/S 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, was given for clubbing the land of Lakhmir Singh petitioner No.2 being the minor along with the land of Autar Singh petitioner No.1. 11. Before the Prescribed Authority the petitioner No.1 has filed specific objection that Late Smt. Ratan Kaur had adopted Lakhmir Singh and thereafter she executed a will in his favour in respect of land and property owned by her. Sri Autar Singh in his statement on oath has specifically mentioned that his son has been adopted by Smt. Ratan Kaur and ceremony of giving and taking Lakhmir Singh in adoption was performed in presence of Granthi, Village Pradhan Bhau and Mahipal Singh witness. This fact has also been mentioned by Smt. Ratan Kaur in her will that she had adopted Lakhmir S/o Autar Singh. 12. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the objections on the ground that no document of adoption has been filed in the evidence. This is not the case of parties any adoption deed was executed nor in the will of Smt. Ratan Kaur there is averment to this effect. In the will it has been mentioned by Smt. Ratan Kaur that her husband had desire to adopt a child, but in his life time her husband could not take a child in adoption, but at the last moment of his life, her husband had asked her to adopt the son of Autar Singh and on the basis of last will of her husband she has adopted Lakhbir Singh son of Autar Singh and she bequeathed her total moveable and immoveable property to her adopted son. It appears that since Santa Singh had died earlier and at the time of mutation of the property in the name of Lakhmir Singh the original will executed by Smt. Ratan Kaur was filed before the Revenue Authorities and it was proved as Ext. Ka. 1. It appears that since Santa Singh had died earlier and at the time of mutation of the property in the name of Lakhmir Singh the original will executed by Smt. Ratan Kaur was filed before the Revenue Authorities and it was proved as Ext. Ka. 1. In the revenue record instead of mentioning the name of Late Smt. Ratan Kaur, name of Autar Singh has been mentioned as father of Lakhmir Singh. At the same time name of Lakhmir Singh has been mutated in place of Smt. Ratan Kaur widow of Santa Singh. The revenue authorities are custodian of the record. It was duty of Tehsildar, when the mutation order was made, to see that the will was made in favour of adopted son of Smt. Ratan Kaur, therefore, name of Ratan Kaur should have been mentioned mother of Lakhmir Singh instead of Autar Singh as his father. On the basis of this mistake on part of revenue authorities, the land of petitioner No.2 Lakhmir Singh has been clubbed with the land of petitioner No.1 Autar Singh. Petitioner No.1 Autar Singh was also attesting witness of the will. He has proved the will in his statement but the Prescribed Authority without considering the statement of attesting witness has given a wrong finding that the will was also not proved. For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that the will has not been proved, and the land of late Smt. Ratan Kaur has not been succeeded by Lakhmir Singh then how the land of late Smt. Ratan Kaur could be clubbed with the land of Autar Singh. However, in mutation proceedings the will in question was proved and mutation order was made on the basis of will, in the name of Lakhmir Singh, therefore, the Prescribed Authority gave a perverse finding on this issue. The finding of the Prescribed Authority on the issue of adoption is also a perverse finding that no document of adoption has been filed, since no adoption document was prepared and the adoption ceremony was made as per custom without executing adoption deed. The case of petitioner is that the ceremony of adoption was made in presence of Granthi, Village Pradhan and witness Mahipal Singh. On behalf of State no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced. The case of petitioner is that the ceremony of adoption was made in presence of Granthi, Village Pradhan and witness Mahipal Singh. On behalf of State no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced. Even the Village Pradhan and Mahipal Singh in whose presence the adoption ceremony was completed, have not been summoned by the State to disprove the version of the petitioner that no ceremony of adoption by custom was ever performed. It appears that Shyam Singh Granthi was examined and copy of his statement has been filed as Annexure R.A. 1. Perusal of statement of Shyam Singh shows that he has stated that after the death of Santa Singh, his widow Smt. Ratan Kaur had adopted Lakhmir Singh S/o of Autar Singh. The ceremony was performed in his presence and in the presence of relatives at the house of Autar Singh. This witness has further stated that no written deed of adoption was prepared in his presence. From the date of adoption Lakhmir Singh was living with Smt. Ratan Kaur and after six months of the custom of adoption Smt. Ratan Kaur had died and then Lakhmir Singh being minor had gone to live with his parents. This witness was cross examined. In the cross examination he has stated that at the time of adoption Lakhmir Singh was 3-4 years of age and he was the elder son of Autar Singh and when the ceremony was completed Smt. Ratan Kaur had given her consent for this child Lakhmir Singh. Thus, from the evidence of Shyam Singh, Granthi, it is amply proved that Lakhmir Singh was adopted by Smt. Ratan Kaur and no written deed for adoption was made and the adoption ceremony was performed as per custom. Once it is proved that no written deed of adoption was made and the ceremony was performed as per custom, no question of registration of instrument recoding adoption U/S 17(3) of Registration Act, 1908, which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976, and was made applicable after the first day of January, 1977. 13. Once it is proved that no written deed of adoption was made and the ceremony was performed as per custom, no question of registration of instrument recoding adoption U/S 17(3) of Registration Act, 1908, which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976, and was made applicable after the first day of January, 1977. 13. Thus it has been proved by the averment made in the will as well as the statement of Autar Singh and Shyam Singh Granthi that Lakhmir Singh was adopted by late Smt. Ratan Kaur by performing ceremony as per custom and no adoption deed was made, therefore, the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse findings and liable to be set aside. 14. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Commissioner are set aside and it is directed that the holding recorded in the name of petitioner No.2 Lakhmir Singh, can not be clubbed with the land of petitioner No.1 Autar Singh since this holding was inherited from late Ratan Kaur as her adopted son.