JUDGMENT :- Substitution allowed.

2. These three appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since they arise from the common judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad in W. P. No.3763/79 and batch dated July 4,1979. The facts in C. A. No. 3012/ 79 are sufficient for disposal of the appeals. On July 11,1956, the Government had granted to the appellant certain parcels of land for settling down colonies thereon and to cultivate the land on improved methods of cultivation, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the grant made under the Government Grants Act, 1985. Under S.10(2), of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act), notice was issued on October 20, 1974 by the prescribed authority calling upon him to submit the return for determination of the ceiling area. The appellants objections raised on December 4, 1975 were rejected by the Prescribed Authority by proceedings dated February 28, 1975 holding that the appellant held 94 Bighas 16 Biswas of surplus and was called upon to surrender the same. The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the appellate authority and the Civil Judge by Judgment dated June 2, 1976 dismissed the appeal. In the writ petitions, as stated earlier, the High Court confirmed the orders of the authorities under the Act.

3. Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that when the grant was made under the Government Grants Act, by operation of S.2 and S.3 thereof, the lands covered under the Grant Act stood excluded from the operation of the Act. The Competent Authority under the Act has, therefore, no jurisdiction or power to issue the notice and also determing the surplus and calling upon the appellant to surrender the excess land. Alternatively, it is contended that the appellant is required to file the return under S.9. Section 6(h), was deleated by Amendment Act on January 14, 1975. Therefore, the notice issued in October, 1974 is without jurisdiction and a nullity. No fresh notice was issued to the appellant under S.9, after the delection of the exemption clause referred to therein. The computation of the surplus land is, therefore, illegal. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Malkhan Singh v. State of U. P. (1976) 2 SCC 268).

4. The first question is whether the lands held by the appellant are excluded from the purview of the Act. Section 3(d) of the Act defines holding meaning the lands or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, Sirdar, Asami of Gaon Samaj or an asami mentioned in S. 11, of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U. P., Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a subtenant, or as a Government leassee, 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. A reading of it clearly indicates that the land held as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, other than the lands as 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 is covered by the Act. The contention of the appellant is that the Government grant is not a lease and that, therefore, S.3(d), is inapplicable.

5. We find no force in the contention. The preamble to the grant clearly mentioned that the land was granted for cultivation to make the improved methods of cultivation within the meaning of S.3(8), of the U. P. Tenancy Act XVII of 1939. The grant was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The conditions, inter alia, were that the appellant has to pay annual lease amount and has to personally cultivate the land as enumerated in Clause (1) (a). The grantee shall commence the cultivation within the prescribed period mentioned in Clause (b) and he shall permanently reside in the colonies as mentioned in Clause

(c). Clause (2) mentions that the grantee shall use the land for the purpose o