Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 639
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Ramgarh Farms and Ind. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3375-3376 of 2005
Decided On : 21-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Saurab Agarwal, Sansriti Pathak andAshish Tiwari, Advs. for Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
For Respondents: P.N. Misra, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kr. Visen, Abhishek Chaudhary, Anil Kumar Jha and Vinay Garg, Advs.
Headnote:
Indian Forest Act - Section4 - Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10 - Possession of land - Pay compensation – Quash of order - Factual matrix of the case is that name of Appellant was recorded as of various lands in - In proceedings initiated under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 Appellant was served with a notice Under Section 10 and Prescribed Authority declared an area of 5446 acres to be surplus land vide order Appellant was held to be entitled to certain amount of compensation - However, later on in application moved by Collector order was reviewed and set aside by Prescribed Authority and Appellant was held to be not entitled to any compensation as Appellant was not and the notice issued to it Under Section 10 was erroneous appeal filed by aggrieved Appellant was dismissed by District Court as not maintainable – Held, Be that as it may, admittedly, the Appellant was permitted to retain of land spread in three villages while determining surplus land Under Section 12 Act - It is also not in dispute that Act of 1960 was amended with effect from 08.06.1973 whereby the ceiling area of the land was reduced from - As a result, a fresh ceiling proceeding was initiated under amended Act - Taking into consideration entire facts of the case and the sequence of events High Court came to conclusion that Appellant is entitled acres of land in terms of order dated 29.11.1976 passed in ceiling proceeding predetermining surplus area held by Company after amendment came into effect in Act - Court have given our anxious consideration to matter and in our view once it is held that Appellant came in possession of land from the ex-landlord on basis of lease treating Appellant as a tenant Appellant cannot be held to be a tenure holder - Hence without going into other questions it can safely be concluded that in any circumstance Appellant would be entitled to retain land to extent which is the ceiling limit - Hence, prescribed authority is under an obligation to give an opportunity to Appellant to exercise its option as to which land it opts to retain to extent of 18 acres and not more than that – Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2003 of the Allahabad High Court whereby Division Bench of the High Court allowed the special appeals preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and set aside order dated 17.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition, who directed the authorities to correct the revenue record, pay compensation and deliver the possession of the disputed land to the Appellant.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the name of the Appellant was recorded as Bhumidar of various lands in Nagina Tehsil. In the proceedings initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'Act of 1960'), the Appellant was served with a notice Under Section 10 and the Prescribed Authority declared an area of 5446 acres to be surplus land vide order dated 31.05.1962 and the Appellant was held to be entitled to certain amount of compensation. However, later on in 1976, on the application moved by the Collector, Bijnor, the order dated 31.05.1962 was reviewed and set aside by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellant was held to be not entitled to any compensation as the Appellant was not the Bhumidar and the notice issued to it Under Section 10 was erroneous. The appeal filed by the aggrieved Appellant was dismissed by the District Court as not maintainable.
3. The Appellant, thereafter, moved the High Court by way of writ petition praying therein for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the orders of the Prescribed Authority as also that of District Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed writ petition of the Appellant with costs holding that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 31.5.1962 had become final and it was no longer open to the said Authority to determine as to whether the Appellant was a tenure holder or not. The appeal by special leave (being Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 1983) preferred by the State Government before the Supreme Court was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.1996 for non-prosecution.
4. Meanwhile, the Ceiling Act was amended and the permissible extent of land to be held was reduced to 18 acres. Notice dated 7.10.1976 was issued to the Appellant and vide order dated 29.11.1976, the Prescribed Authority declared 1067.53 acres of land of the Appellant in two villages to be excess and this order was not challenged by the Appellant. Notification dated 16.2.1966 was issued Under Section4 of the Indian Forest Act whereby lands of the Appellant in other villages were proposed to be declared as reserved forest and vide notification dated 27.7.1970 Under Section 20 of the Forest Act, such lands were declared as reserved forest area. These notifications were also not challenged by the Appellant.
5. After the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State Government, the Appellant approached the authorities for correction of the revenue record and payment of compensation in accordance with order dated 31.05.1962. However, as the request was not heeded to, the Appellant filed a writ petition for complying with the High Court judgment dated 05.07.1982 and paying compensation of Rs. 4,19,484/- with interest from 1962 onwards, for returning possession of the land and for correcting the revenue entries in favour of the Appellant in compliance with the orders passed in 1962. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment dated 17.2.2000, directed the authorities to correct the revenue record, pay compensation and hand over the possession of the property.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the State Government preferred an appeal through the Collector who was the Prescribed Authority and another appeal through the Chief Conservator of Forest. The Appellant contested the appeals on the ground that the order dated 29.11.1976 was based on the order dated 30.07.1976 which was set aside by the High Court
