JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition is directed against order dated 16.4.1987 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in appeal No. 4/86-87 under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “1960 Act”) dismissing appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 25.2.1986 of Prescribed Authority, Bhogaon Mainpuri rejecting objection of petitioner against declaration of 8.22 acres of irrigated land as surplus. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the dispute in the present case may be given as under. 3. Rao Balbhadra Singh was the grand father of petitioner who had two sons namely Rao Mahesh Singh and Vir Bhadra Singh. Rao Mahesh Singh had two sons i.e. petitioner-Krishna Pratap Singh (since deceased) (his legal heir as substituted in the writ petition) and Sri Madho Narain Singh. A notice under Section 10(2) of 1960 Act was issued by Prescribed Authority to Rao Mahesh Singh proposing to declare 8.22 acres of land surplus in respect to plot No. 1295. The Prescribed Authority found tenure holder possessing total 26.26 acres of irrigated land hence he declared 8.22 acres of irrigated land as surplus. 4. The petitioner- Krishna Pratap Singh, who was not issued notices, filed objection that land in question was ancestral and therefore 1/3rd of land each should have been allowed to the two sons of Rao Mahesh Singh which has been omitted and had the said share of petitioner and his brother would have been allowed, there would not have been any surplus land. Copy of the said objection is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 5. The aforesaid objection was rejected by Prescribed Authority on 17.7.1979 whereagainst appeal was also dismissed by District Judge, Mainpuri on 20.8.1979. The petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 10308 of 1979 which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.11.1980 observing that rejection of objection filed by petitioner on the ground that same was not entertainable was incorrect and Prescribed Authority ought to have considered the same on merits. This Court also observed when Prescribed Authority had rejected objection summarily on the ground of entertainability, the Appellate Court had no occasion to enter into the merits on the issue and hence matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. 6. This Court also observed when Prescribed Authority had rejected objection summarily on the ground of entertainability, the Appellate Court had no occasion to enter into the merits on the issue and hence matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. 6. Consequently, it was re-considered by Prescribed Authority and vide order dated 25.2.1986 it had rejected the objections of petitioner and his brother Madho Narain Singh whereagainst the petitioner filed appeal which has been rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 16.4.1987. 7. Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate submitted that petitioner being son of Rao Balbhadra Singh was entitled for 1/3rd share of land which was ancestral and this aspect having not been considered by Courts below, they have committed patent error. He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra and others v. Commissioner & Director of Consolidation, Meerut, 1970 RD 283 and Single Judge judgment in Rajeshwar Pratap Sahi v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur and others, 1998 (2) AWC 856 . 8. It is no doubt true that if holding is ancestral and belong to joint Hindu family, the sons constituting joint Hindu family and coparcenary with the father were intermediaries of the land in question. They would also form proprietors alongwith father of the zamindari property, and the Khudkasht land belonging to the joint Hindu family and coparcenary for the reason that land in such case belong to the joint Hindu family and the sons therefore constitute co-sharers in the Khudkast. This view has been taken by Division bench in Ram Chandra and others (supra) and relevant observations in the judgment read as under : “There cannot be also be any dispute that Ishwar Chand and Ashok Kumar were also proprietors alongwith Nanak, of the zamindari property, and the Khudkasht land belonging to the joint Hindu family and coparcenary. Inasmuch as the land in dispute belonged to the joint Hindu family, Ishwar Chand and Ashok Kumar were co-sharers of the Khudkasht land in dispute, the same would be deemed to have been settled on them by the State Government under the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The mere circumstances that their names were not recorded in the village records would not deprive them of the rights that they possess in the land in dispute. The mere circumstances that their names were not recorded in the village records would not deprive them of the rights that they possess in the land in dispute. The normal practice in a case of coparcenary is to record the name of the father alone even though the property is jointly owned by him and his sons. That being the position, we are of the opinion that Nanak was not free to transfer more than his share in the land in dispute that is to say more than one third. It is, therefore, seems to us that the view taken by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and the Director of Consolidation is correct and does not require any interference at our hands.” 9. In Rajeshwar Pratap Sahi (supra) also this Court in para 13 held: “In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is apparent that the accrual of interest in the holdings falling in the category of Sir or Khudkasht or grove, etc., the succession in respect whereof was governed by the personal law as provided under the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 had to be taken into account while determining the extent of the interest of a tenureholder in any holding after the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as the provisions contained therein did not affect the rights of co-sharer in such holdings to which he was entitled in accordance with the personal law applicable before the enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This position in law had to be taken into account while determining the extent of interest of a bhumidhar record as such irrespective of the fact that the entry in his name ex-facie showed him to be the sole Bhumidhar as the omission to record the name of any other co-sharer who succeeded in establishing that he had also a right in the Sir. Khudkasht or grove, etc., which had accrued in his favour prior to the date of vesting in accordance with the principles of personal law applicable to him could not be taken to have been wiped out or extinguished merely because of the omission to record his name indicating him to be a co-sharer bhumidhar. This, however, has to be established by cogent evidence, as ordinarily a presumption of correctness attaches to an entry in the Khatauni which Is the record of right. This, however, has to be established by cogent evidence, as ordinarily a presumption of correctness attaches to an entry in the Khatauni which Is the record of right. This presumption is, however, rebuttable. From the facts and circumstances brought on record what I find that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to rebut the presumption.” 10. However, it is evident from the judgment in Rajeshwar Pratap Sahi (supra) that person who claim himself to be a co-sharer in the land in question has to establish his right by cogent evidence for the reason that presumption of correctness attaches to an entry in the Khatauni which is the record of rights and this presumption though rebuttable but has to be done so by adducing cogent evidence. If any person fails to adduce adequate evidence so as to contradict the revenue record, he would have to fail. 11. In the present case, authorities below have non suited the petitioner’s claim on the ground that petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to show that land in question was ancestral and the petitioner was a co-sharer therein. 12. Sri O.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that before authorities below, no such evidence could be adduced so as to satisfy the claim of petitioners. Now a supplementary affidavit has been filed sworn on 27.7.2011 appending certified copy of notice dated 8.10.1975/17.7.1979 stating that it was incomplete, inasmuch as, schedule was not given to the petitioner and that Fard Mutabikat Bandobast 1347 which was in Urdu, when translated in Hindi, show that land in question was ancestral but it appears that evidence and revenue record available with the respondents themselves has not been considered by them properly. The findings recorded by Courts below that petitioners failed to adduce evidence is perverse. 13. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that Fard Mutabikat Bandobast 1347 was originally prepared in Urdu and if Hindi translation prescribed by petitioner is taken to be correct, there appears to be some error in its appreciation. 14. Since revenue record originally prepared is in Urdu, chance of misinterpretation or wrong interpretation or wrong reading cannot be ruled out. The matter relates to the property and a person can be deprived of his property only in accordance with procedure prescribed in law and not otherwise. 14. Since revenue record originally prepared is in Urdu, chance of misinterpretation or wrong interpretation or wrong reading cannot be ruled out. The matter relates to the property and a person can be deprived of his property only in accordance with procedure prescribed in law and not otherwise. This is a constitutional right vest under Article 300-A of Constitution though earlier when notice was issued, it was a fundamental right also. 15. Be that as it may, since decision is likely to deprive petitioner of his valuable property rights, in my view, justice demand that documents may be directed to be reconsidered by authorities with correct Hindi translation or the language known to the parties well. 16. In view of the above, in my view, the matter needs be re-considered by the Courts below. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.4.1987 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and dated 25.2.1986 passed by Prescribed Authority, Bhogaon Mainpuri (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider afresh in the light of relevant revenue record as also the one, as pointed out by petitioners hereinabove and he shall pass a fresh order within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 17. No costs. ———————