M.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This petition arises out of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter described as the Act.
2. The brief facts are these:--
A notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the said Act to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority and the former filed objections. Inter alia, one of the objections was that a transaction of sale effected by a registered saledeed dated 29th October, 1971 relating to 12.50 acres of land was being wrongly disregarded in the said proceedings and that the said transaction should have been accepted and the area of the sale deed should have been excluded from the total land in the possession of the petitioner. The prescribed Authority did not accept the said contention and held that the transaction which was post-24th Jan. 1971 was not a genuine one. The petitioner went up in appeal to the lower appellate court. In the order of the lower appellate court while the petitioner's objection about certain land treated as irrigated was accepted by the said Court and relief was allowed to the petitioner on the said ground, nothing was said about the disputed sale deed. However, it is stated in the order of the lower appellate court that 'no other point was either argued or passed.' The petitioner has come up in the instant petition to this Court and in support thereof I have heard his learned counsel Sri S.S. Agnihotri. The learned Standing Counsel has been heard in opposition.
3. Sri Agnihotri pressed before me that there was no reason why the petitioner should not have pressed his ground in respect of the sale deed. The ground was very much there in the memorandum of appeal filed in the lower appellate Court. He has drawn my attention to the affidavit of Sri M.C. Bansal filed on behalf of the petitioner who has deposed that the ground relating to the sale deed was specifically argued before the lower appellate court.
4. On the other hand, learned standing Counsel has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherein it is clearly stated that the said ground was not argued vide para 6 of the counter affidavit. In a situation like this where conflicting testimony is forthcoming, it becomes difficult to say anything definite on this controversy as to whether the point was really raised and argued in the lower appellate court. I must, however, point out that the affidavit of Sri Bansal is not in the proper form. He has sworn the affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge as well as on belief which is not permissible. Swearing on the basis of bothpersonal knowledge as well as belief will not be in accordance with law. However, apart from these technicalities or other aspect of the matter, it seems to me that as the record stands, the petitioner did not bring on record real substantive evidence which he had the burden to place before the prescribed Authority to prove that the transaction was a bona fide one. No documentary evidence was placed to show that mutation in favour of the purchaser had been effected. No other evidence was placed before the court to show that the possession had been transferred in favour of the purchaser. In fact, the petitioner in his statement before the prescribed Authority did not say a single word that such possession has been transferred in favour of the purchaser. In such a situation the prescribed Authority could not be blamed for not accepting the genuineness of the transaction. I should like to emphasise that in these proceedings a party is not entitled to claim interference merely on the ground of some formal imperfection in the orders passed by the authorities below. Unless on the basis of the entire record the petitioner succeeds in proving to the conscience of the court that injustice has been done to him, this Court is not bound to interfere merely on the ground of existence of formal infirmity or imperfection in the orders of the authorities below. In the present case I am convinced that the petitioner is merely seeking to take advantage of a merely formal approach to the problem.
5. This petition fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.