Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (Dead) By Lrs. vs Prescribed Authority, Rampur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(SC) 765

2003(6) Supreme 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (Dead) by LRs. -Appellants
versus
Prescribed Authority, Rampur and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1712 of 1997
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 804 of 1996
Decided on 18-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Bhava Dutt Sharma, Ranbir Yadav, Atul Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, K. Mishra, Manoj R. Sinha, Manoj Kr. Mishra and M.C. Dhingra, Advocates.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended by 1972 Act-Sections 3(9), 3(17), 5, 6-Imposition of ceiling on lands held by ex-Ruler-Father of appellant was ex-Ruler of Rampur State-Merger Agreement-List of moveable and immoveable properties which could be private properties of the Ruler conveyed-An area of 1073 acres stated to have been transferred by State to Ruler for farming purposes free of rent-Notification issued under Section 4(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act vesting all estates situated in territory occupied by former princely State of Rampur except private lands belonging to ex-Ruler of Rampur-Lands in question being private property of ex-Ruler-Whether provisions of U.P. Land Holdings Act, 1960 applied to appellants land-Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration.
       Held : The High Court, in our view, did not consider the question that arose for consideration as to whether the provisions of the Act applied to the lands of the appellants. As already noticed above, a factual error was committed by the High Court in stating that the lands were not private properties of the ex-Ruler. It also committed an error in holding that the ex-Ruler was a tenure holder merely looking to the use of the words free of rent mentioned in the item No. 6 of list of the letter annexed to the Merger Agreement. It failed to consider the use of the words free of rent having regard to the contextual facts and in the light of the decision of this Court aforementioned. Unfortunately, the High Court did not even consider the relevant provisions of the Act bearing on the controversy. (Para 14)
       The effect of Explanation I to Section 5 of the Act should have been also kept in view. The focus of the attention of the High Court was confined to the exemptions granted under Section 6 of the Act without basically considering the main Section 5 dealing with the imposition of ceiling on the lands held by the ex-Ruler. Section 6 of the Act speaks of exemption of certain lands which shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus land of the tenure holder. Mere omission of exemption of private properties of ex-Ruler in the categories of exemptions under Section 6 after amendment cannot take away the effect and operation of Section 5 and the other provisions of the Act. There may be cases where an ex-Ruler might have possessed private lands as absolute owner as against tenure holder or may be holding lands partly as tenure holder or partly as absolute owner of the private property. Such cases are to be examined in the light of definitions contained in Section 3 and provisions contained in Section 5 read with Section 6. Unfortunately, these aspects did not receive deeper and proper consideration at the hands of the High Court. As already observed above, the approach of the High Court was truncated when it considered only the effect of exemption under Section 6 of the Act on the lands held by the appellants and further the High Court also committed a factual error in holding that the lands in question were not at all private properties of the ex-Ruler as per the Merger Agreement. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.- Father of the appellants was ex-Ruler of Rampur State who entered into an agreement with Dominion of India on 15-5-1949 to surrender and transfer the administration of the territory of the former State of Rampur and to merge the said territory into the Dominion of India under the Merger Agreement. Article 4 of the said Agreement, to the extent relevant, reads:-

"Article 4-

The Nawab shall be entitled to Full Ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of this agreement."

2. On the same day, Ministry of States, Government of India wrote a letter to him which was to be treated as part of the Merger Agreement. Clause (xviii) reads:-

"(xviii)-

No land or building being your Highness s private property shall be requisitioned or acquired without your consent and without paying full compensation."

3. On 15-5-1949 itself, the Ministry of States, Government of India, wrote a letter to the Nawab containing a list of moveable and immoveable properties which would be the private properties of the Ruler for the purpose of Article 4 of the Merger Agreement. Item 6 in the list pertained to agricultural lands covering an area of 1073 acres stated to have been transferred by the State to the Ruler for farming purposes free of rent.

4. Under section 4(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, State Government issued a notification in 30-6-1952 vesting all the estates in the State which did not include estates in Rampur State. On 30-6-1954, the said Act was extended to the territory occupied by the former Princely State of Rampur. Thereafter on 1-7-1954, State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act vesting all lands (estates) situated in the territory occupied by the former princely State of Rampur except the private lands belonging to the ex-Ruler of Rampur.

5. The State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh passed the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act ). The said Act was amended from time to time. The relevant Sections as existed in 1977-78 when the said Act was sought to be applied to the appellants read as under:-

"3(9) - `Holding means the land or lands held by a person as a Bhumidar, Sirdar, Asami, Gaon Sabha or an Asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or, as a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or, as a sub-lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease."

"3(16) - "Surplus land" means land held by a TENURE HOLDER in exercise of the Ceiling area applicable to him, and includes any buildings, well and trees existing thereon."

"3(17) - "Tenure-holder" means a person who is the holder of a holding, but except in Chapter III does not include:-

(a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder;

(b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder."

"3(21) - The words and expressions not defined in this Act but used in Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act."

"Section 5. Imposition of ceiling-

(1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him.

Explanation I-In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account.

Explanation II-If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possession and the name, of any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2003 Supreme(SC) 765

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis