JUDGMENT : SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the State. 2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13-04-1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the order dated 29-06-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), District-Barabanki. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that a notice under section 10(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960) was issued to the petitioner on 11-09-1974. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why the statement under section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 1960 be not taken as correct. As per the version of the petitioner, the notice was not served upon him and therefore, he could not file objections as a result whereof, the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) District-Barabanki passed an order on 25-11-1974, whereby the land in question was declared as surplus land. 4. As soon as, the aforesaid fact came into the knowledge of the petitioner, he submitted an application dated 02-01-1975 before the prescribed authority, under section 11(2) of Act, 1960. Just thereafter, on 09-01-1975, the petitioner moved another application for spot inspection. He again moved an application on 20-01-1975 mentioning therein that ‘Baba Guru Charan Das’ is ‘Mahant’ of ‘Kuti-Manipur’ and the property in question belongs to a ‘Math’ and this property belongs to a trust and there is possession of ‘Math’ over there. He also submitted that income of ‘Math’ is wholly utilised for realigous and charitable purposes and not for the petitioner or his defendants. The Prescribed Authority, on the aforesaid application passed an order and directed the Naib Tehsildar, Haidergarh to make an inspection and submit a report by 25-01-1975. In pursuance thereof, the Naib Tehsildar, enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the effect that the land in question is un-irrigated as the same is not within the Command Area of the Canal or Tubewell. He also reported that plot no. In pursuance thereof, the Naib Tehsildar, enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the effect that the land in question is un-irrigated as the same is not within the Command Area of the Canal or Tubewell. He also reported that plot no. 1024 is a ‘Jheel’ and in most of the area, paddy crops are sown and the land belongs to a ‘Math’ and the petitioner is “Mahant.” On the aforesaid report, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10-03-1975, discharged the notices issued against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10-03-1975, the State of U.P. instituted an appeal under section 13 of the ‘Act 1960’ which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad vide order dated 26-04-1976 and the matter was remanded back to the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh. 5. After the matter remitted back to the Prescribed Authority, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioner, filed under section 11(2) of the ‘Act 1960’ as the explanation with respect to the delay was not found sufficient. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present petitioner again filed an appeal which was allowed on 27-08-1977 and case was remanded back to opposite party no. 3 for decision afresh. 6. While deciding the matter, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26-03-1981 held that the property belongs to a ‘Math’ of ‘Baba Shahab Kabir Panti Saint’ and the income of the property is being utilized for religious and chartiable purposes. While passing the order aforesaid, the Prescribed Authority has considered the report of the Naib Tehsildar and entries of Khatauni of 1359 Fasli and Form 23 and Form 41 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. Assailing the order dated 26-03-1981, the State of U.P. filed an appeal, which was allowed on 13-03-1984 and the case was again transmitted back to the opposite party no. 3 with direction to decide the case after framing the additional issues whether Math/Trust in question is a public chartiable or religious trust or not. After the aforesaid order, the opposite party no. 2 framed five issues in addition to three issues framed earlier. 3 with direction to decide the case after framing the additional issues whether Math/Trust in question is a public chartiable or religious trust or not. After the aforesaid order, the opposite party no. 2 framed five issues in addition to three issues framed earlier. The Objector filed Khataunis of 1359,1380,1390 and 1392 Faslis and the witnesses also deposed that the property in suit belongs to a ‘Math’ in the name of ‘Baba Guru Charan Das’ as the trustee and this is not the personal property. The State of U.P. also got examined Prabhu Nath Tewri, Lekhpal and Durga Baksh Singh, Naib Tehsildar. On consideration of evidences and statements of the witnesses, the Prescribed Authority passed an order and denied the benefit of section 6(f) of the ‘Act 1960’ and thereby declared the area of 10-15-3 Bighas as surplus land. Being aggrieved with the order aforesaid, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 01-08-1987 and that was dismissed vide order dated 13-04-1992, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 8. Contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that initially without serving a notice under section 10(2) of the Act 1960 the order was passed and thereafter, the petitioner challenged the same and he was allowed to be heard. He added that it is a well settled law that a ‘trust’ may be unregistered and further a property can be dedicated orally for charitable or religious purposes and the opposite party i.e. the State of U.P. has failed to contradict the same before the prescribed authority. 9. Learned Senior Counsel in support of the contentions aforesaid has placed reliance on a Judgment reported in Shri Radhaji Brijman Mandir and Others vs. District Judge, Banda and Others, 1979 (5) ALR 132 and has referred the extract of the Judgment aforesaid as under: “In the instant case the endowment in question was for religious and charibtable 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. 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. The question is whether land covered by the endowment is exempt from consideration in the proceeding under the Act. 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) 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 Mahraj. 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, there is no dispute that the settler and his wife died issueless and, therefore, the question of 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.” 10. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been held by the court that if there is any discrepancies in the maintenance of the record of income of the ‘trust’ that would not prevent the benefit of the provisions contained in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act 1960. 11. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has been held by the court that if there is any discrepancies in the maintenance of the record of income of the ‘trust’ that would not prevent the benefit of the provisions contained in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act 1960. 11. He has further placed reliance on a case reported in Matloob Ali vs. First Additional District and Sessions Judge and Others, 1979 RD 32 (Allahabad High Court) and submitted that it has been held that the first part of the requirement mentioned in Section 6(1)(f) of Act 1960 is that the land be held before the first day of May, 1959, by or under a public religious or charitable Waqf, trust endowment or institution and so far as the present matter is concerned, the ‘Math’ was in existence on the first day of May, 1959. 12. He further submitted that though certain plots have been declared as irrigated land, but, the evidence, which are on record, shows that the plots in question are not in Command Area of Canal or any Tubewell owned by the State. He submits that if the income of the property is not maintained by the trustee, even then that would not be a ground for denial of the benefit of section 6(f) of Act 1960, to a tenure holder and in the instant matter, there is a report of the Naib Tehsildar and the statement of a village person, which say that the property in question belongs to a ‘Math’ which has been established for religious and chartibale purposes and the income of the property was not utilized by the petitioner or his decedents and the State of U.P. could not succeed to prove before the prescribed authority or appellate authority that the property was not being used for charitable or religious purposes. 13. He further contended that the land in question was recorded in 1359 Fasli in the name of the ‘Baba Math’ and the property was inherited by ‘Guru’ of the present petitioner and the entries in the revenue record also denotes the word ‘Chela’ and thus, this could not be said to be a personal property of the petitioner. 13. He further contended that the land in question was recorded in 1359 Fasli in the name of the ‘Baba Math’ and the property was inherited by ‘Guru’ of the present petitioner and the entries in the revenue record also denotes the word ‘Chela’ and thus, this could not be said to be a personal property of the petitioner. He submits that the State government has not only been failed to contradict the evidences and the statements of the witnesses, but, also has failed to show any document that the land in question was not being utilised for charitable purposes. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the land in question was not being utilised for charitable or religious purposes and it is not a property of ‘Math’ or ‘Trust’ but, it was being utilised for personal purposes and benefits. In support his contentions, he added that the report dated 13-02-1975, which was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, was not examined while affording opportunity of cross-examination to the State. 15. He also added that though the petitioner is claiming the benefit of the provisions of Section 6(1)(f) of the Act, 1960, but, he has failed to establish that he is Manager of a religious and chartiable Trust/Math and it is prima-facie, evident that the land in question is recorded in the name of an individual and this is not recorded in the name of any “Trust” or “Math.” He added that the petitioner has also failed to prove that the whole income of the land in question is being utilised for religious and charitable purposes, which is one of the conditions precedent for getting the benefit of Section 6(1)(f) of the Act, 1960. 16. Adding his arguments, he submits that the petitioner could not substantiate that the ‘Trust/Math’ was registered at any point of time and if it is been claimed as ‘Trust’ the same should be registered as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. 17. 16. Adding his arguments, he submits that the petitioner could not substantiate that the ‘Trust/Math’ was registered at any point of time and if it is been claimed as ‘Trust’ the same should be registered as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. 17. He further added and has drawn attention of this court towards the case reported in Avinash Chandra Tewari vs. Additional District Judge, Unnao, 2011 (86) ALR 662 and has referred paragraph no. 27 and added that the Hon’ble court has held that mere on the fact that the members of the public are allowed to worship or visit the place, would not be the proof of a public Trust. 18. Further contention is that it is evident from the order dated 29-06-1987 that the Prescribed Authority has properly framed five questions in compliance of the direction of the appellate order dated 20-03-1984 and there was no direction with respect to framing of question on the issue of the land being irrigated or non-irrigated. He submits that the property is not of a ‘Math’ or ‘Trust’ but, it is the property recorded in the name of a person and the same is being used for individual and not for religious or charitable purposes and therefore, there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it emerges that a dispute arose with respect to declaration of the land in question as a surplus land. Initially, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 11-09-1974, which as per the averment of the petitioner, was never served upon him and therefore, a set of litigation was instituted and ultimately, the petitioner succeeded and his objections were entertained under section 11(2) of the Act, 1960. Thereafter, the matter goes upto the appellate court and the same was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30-03-1984 with a direction to formulate additional issues and thereafter, the issues were formulated by the Prescribed Authority and the order was passed on 29-06-1987, whereby the claim of the petitioner with respect to according benefit of Section 6(f) of the Act, 1960 was rejected. An appeal was also instituted that too was decided vide order dated 13-04-1992 upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as the appellate authority found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. 20. When this court examined the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 29-06-1987, it reveals that five additional questions were framed including the question as to whether the property in question belongs to a religious ‘Math’ and whether the same was recorded as a ‘Math’ prior to 01-05-1959 and whether the income arising out of the aforesaid property is being utilised for religious and charitable purposes coupled with the issue that whether the descendants are also beneficiaries of the alleged “Trust” or “Math.” 21. On the perusal of the discussions of court below while deciding the aforesaid issue is clear that the land in question is recorded in the name of the present petitioner and not in the name of any ‘Math’ or ‘Trust’ and there is no written terms or conditions thereof. The Prescribed Authority while examining the evidences and the statements of the witnesses, has come to the conclusion that no evidence could be placed by the petitioner that the income of the property in question was being utilised for religious or charitable purposes or the family members/descendants of the petitioner are not the beneficiaries of the land in question. He has also considered the statements of the Naib Tehsildar and the Lekhpal of the area concerned that the property in question is the private property of Guru Sharan Das. 22. This court has also noticed that there is a contradiction in the Nakal Khatauni of 1359 Fasli with the present Khataunis and the origin of the alleged ‘Math’ could not be proved prior to 01-05-1959, which is the cut of date mentioned in section 6(1)(f) of Act 1960. While examining the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 13-04-1975, it is answered that the Naib Tehsildar did not mention the fact that what is the basis of his satisfaction that the land in question is land of a ‘Math’ and when it was constituted and the land was recorded in the name of the “Math.” 23. While examining the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 13-04-1975, it is answered that the Naib Tehsildar did not mention the fact that what is the basis of his satisfaction that the land in question is land of a ‘Math’ and when it was constituted and the land was recorded in the name of the “Math.” 23. The appellant authority has recorded findings that the Naib Tehsildar has also not mentioned any fact in its report that whether the income of the property in question was not being utilized for ‘Mahant’ as well as his family members and though much emphasis has been placed upon the report of the Naib Tehsildar by the petitioner on every stage. 24. In fact, substantially, there were two questions, which were to be dealt with by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. The first issue is that whether the property in question is a property of ‘Math’ or ‘Trust’ and the income of which was being utilised for religious or charitable purposes and the second issue is that whether for according the benefits of Section 6(1)(f) of the Act 1960, a ‘Trust’ or ‘Math’ is essentially to be registered or not. 25. The first issue is that whether the property in question is a property of ‘Math’ or ‘Trust’ and the income of which was being utilised for religious or charitable purposes and the second issue is that whether for according the benefits of Section 6(1)(f) of the Act 1960, a ‘Trust’ or ‘Math’ is essentially to be registered or not. 25. The first issue, which has been answered by the Prescribed Authority is that the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 13-02-1975, was vehemently relied upon by the petitioner though, it is apparent that except apart from a line report of the Naib Tehsildar that the property in question is the property of a ‘Math’ there is no other details that what was the evidence and record, on the basis of which, the Naib Tehsildar reported that the property belongs to a “Math.” It has also not been disclosed by the Naib Tehsildar in his report dated 13-04-1975 that the income of the property in question was being utilized for charitable or religious purposes, except the fact that usually the saints of ‘Kabir Panti’ were kept on visiting and the expenditure incurred upon the religious ceremonies were fulfilled by the income of the property in question, but, this does not disclose that whether all the income of the property in question was being utilised for the charitable and religious purposes as it is settled law that even if the part of the income of land is not utilised for the charitable purposes, then the benefit of the provisions of section 6(1)(f) of the ‘Act 1960’ cannot be given. 26. Further the petitioner also could not prove by any of the documents that the income of the property in question was utilized for charitable and religious purposes and he has also failed to prove that he or his family members are not the beneficiaries of the income of the property in question. Further, there is a material contradiction in the Nakal Khatauni of 1359 Fasli as well as well as the Nakal Khatauni of the present year and therefore, this could not be proved that the property in question was being utilized for charitable and religious purposes, being a ‘Math’ before 01-05-1959. 27. Further, there is a material contradiction in the Nakal Khatauni of 1359 Fasli as well as well as the Nakal Khatauni of the present year and therefore, this could not be proved that the property in question was being utilized for charitable and religious purposes, being a ‘Math’ before 01-05-1959. 27. This court has also noticed the fact that the petitioner has also failed to show any document with respect to any ‘Math’ or ‘Trust’ recorded in the name of ‘Baba Guru Sharan Das’ which prima-facie, shows that it is a personal property and it is not being used for any religious or charitable purposes and all these issues have very exhaustively been dealt with by the 13 Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant matter. 28. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 29. Consigned to record.