R.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.)A notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon the Petitioner: He filed an objection. One of the questions raised before the Prescribed Authority was that the strength of the family members of the Petitioner was 8 and 7 as shown in the notice. The Petitioner also offered choice. The objection of the Petitioner was rejected. He went in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.)THE first question to be considered in the present writ petition is whether the finding of the authorities be -low with respect to strength of the family members of the Petitioner is based on the evidence on record or not, and, further whether the documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner has been considered or not. In support of his contention the Petitioner placed reliance on the oral as well as documentary evidence. He filed extract of Kutumb register showing strength of the family members as eight. This copy of the Kutumb register was not considered by the appellate authority on the ground that original was not produced. Section 109 -A of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides for admissibility of certified copies of documents issued by authorised officers. Unless there was any objection that the document has been issued by any person who was not authorised and unless genuineness of the document was doubted, the appellate authority was not right in ignoring the document merely because the original was not filed. It so seems that the appellate authority misdirected itself by not considering the provisions of Section 109 -A of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The appellate authority also misconstrued the statement of Surendrapal Singh. As a matter of fact, while considering the case of Surendrapal Singh the authority placed reliance on the statement of Virendrapal Singh. The cases of the two brothers were different and the statement of one in one case could not have been taken into consideration in other case, unless it was relied upon for that purpose. Surendrapal Singh categorically stated that strength of his family members was eight. The appellate authority placed reliance on the statement of the Lekhpal whose statement was not fully considered by the appellate authority. The Lekhpal at one place stated that the Petitioner had five minor children apart from one major son. At another place he stated that the Petitioner had only 4 minor children. The Lekhpal further stated that he inquired about strength of the family members of the Petitioner from the village, but failed to disclose the source from whom such inquiry was made. All these factors were such which were necessary to be considered by the appellate authority while considering the statement of the Lekhpal. The appellate authority did not consider these factors as also the evidence of the Petitioner and as such the judgment of the appellate authority cannot be said to be based on the evidence on record. As the evidence has not been considered and the findings recorded are not based on the material on record, it is necessary that the case be sent back to the appellate authority for consideration of the evidence and deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the Petitioner offered the choice, but as the choice was offered with respect to a lesser area than the area declared as surplus hence his choice was not considered.

(3.)IN my opinion this cannot be a ground for rejecting the choice. If the choice was offered for a lesser area, at least the entire area offered in choice has to be accepted and if more area is to be declared surplus, the same can be done from any land if no choice is offered for that. As the case is being sent back to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the question of strength of the family members of the Petitioner, it would be desirable that the appellate authority considers the choice also.