Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, R.F. Nariman, JJ.
Arvind Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7165 of 2016
Decided On : 08-08-2016
1987 Supp. SCC 21; (1992) 1 SCC 737 – Distinguished
(b) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 – Section 9 – Many sections of the Act made retrospective wef 8.6.1973 – However, Act itself and section 9 made applicable wef 19.1.1975 – Prescribed authority making order under Principal Act on 13.1.1975 ie prior to coming into force of the Act, 1972 – Prescribed authority required to re-determine the surplus land. (Para 12)
(c) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 – Section 9 and Section 31(3), U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 – Expression “may at any time within a period of two years…” – The word “may” will go along with the words “at any time within a period of two years…” – Thus ‘may’ does not relate to re-determination but to the time frame – Prescribed authority thus required to re-determine surplus land where an order determining surplus land has been made before 10.10.1975 – He does not have a discretion in the matter – Instantly such order made on 13.1.1975 – Prescribed authority had to make re-determination of surplus land. (Para 12)
(d) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 – Section 19 – General notice issued to tenure holder u/s 9(2) – Amounting to fresh proceeding u/s 19(1) – Section 19(2) will have no application – Proceeding will not abate. (Para 13)
(e) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 – Section 31 – Order determining the surplus land made four days before 17.1.1975 – Appeal filed – Pending on 10.10.1975 – Appeal deemed to abate u/s 31(2) – Necessary for Prescribed authority to re-determine surplus land u/s 31(3) – Not done – Appeal having abated could not be decided by Additional Commissioner – Order dated 13.12.1975 passed by Additional Commissioner in appeal, held, without jurisdiction. (Para 14, 15)
(f) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 – Section 9 and section 31, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 – Additional Commissioner and High Court proceeding on premise of non-issuance of notice u/s 9(2) – Such notice, in fact, issued on 24.11.1975 and not replied – Apart from that, abatement u/s 31 not dependent upon issue or non-issue of notice u/s 9(2) – Section 31(3), Act 1976 only requires fresh determination of surplus land – Not done – Impugned judgment liable to set aside. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The basic question arising in this case is whether ceiling proceedings in respect of the land the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 x have lapsed owing to Section 31 of the 1976 Amendment Act.
A notice under Section 10(2) of the principal Act was served upon the tenure-holder, one Kamla Devi, to file objections against a proposal to declare 51.29 acres as surplus land.
The objections were filed by the late Kamla Devi as also by appellants 1 to 3, her legal heirs.
However, the Prescribed Authority under the Act passed an order dated 13.1.1975 by which the entire land that was the subject matter of the notice, was declared surplus.
An appeal filed against the Prescribed Authority’s order was dismissed.
A writ petition that was filed in 1987 was ultimately dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Proceeding abated u/s 31(3) of Act,1976.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. The present case involves the Court going through a dense jungle which consists of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as “the principal Act”] and three Amendment Acts made thereto. With the help of learned counsel for both the sides, we have waded through the various Sections and sub-sections of these Acts, only for the purpose of having to decide one basic question: as to whether ceiling proceedings in respect of the land in question have lapsed owing to Section 31 of the 1976 Amendment Act.
2. The brief facts necessary to decide the present case are as follows. A notice under Section 10(2) of the principal Act, was served upon the tenure-holder, one Kamla Devi, to file objections against a proposal to declare 51.29 acres as surplus land. Pursuant to the said notice, objections were filed by the late Kamla Devi as also by appellants 1 to 3, her legal heirs. According to the appellants, on a correct construction of the Act, there was no surplus land. Meanwhile, the Prescribed Authority under the Act passed an order dated 13.1.1975 by which order the entire land that was the subject matter of the notice, was declared surplus. An appeal filed against the Prescribed Authority’s order met with the same fate and was dismissed on 13.12.1987. It is important to note that an argument was raised that the proceedings had abated, which argument was answered by the Appellate Authority by saying that no fresh notice had been issued under Section 9(2) of the Amendment Act and as this was so, the proceedings had not abated. A writ petition that was filed in 1987 was ultimately disposed of on 6.8.2007 where, by the judgment under appeal, the writ petition was dismissed. Several points were argued with which we are not at present concerned. The argument on abatement met the same fate as the judgment by the appellate authority.
3. Before adverting to the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, it is first important to put the horse before the cart. A brief survey of the principal Act as well as the three Amendment Acts must now be undertaken.
4. The 1960 Act is an Act to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under the principal Act, the ceiling area of a tenure-holder was said to be 40 acres of “fair quality land”, and where the tenure-holder has a family consisting of more than 5 members, to the ceiling area of such tenure-holder is to be added 8 acres of fair quality land for every additional member of the family, subject to a maximum of 24 acres. “Fair quality land” was defined in the principal Act as meaning land, the hereditary rate of which is above Rs.6/-per acre under the Act. A general notice was to be given to tenure-holders holding land in excess of the ceiling area so that they could submit a statement in respect thereof. A quasi-judicial determination is then to be made of surplus land, where objections are filed and the prescribed authority, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and of producing evidence, is then to decide their objections after recording reasons, and then determine the extent of surplus land. An appeal is provided to the District Judge whose decision is then made final and conclusive. The prescribed authority is then to notify in the Official Gazette the surplus land so determined. On the date of such notification, such surplus land shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances, and on/from that date, all right, title and interest of all persons in such land shall stand extinguished. The principal Act then contains machinery for distribution of surplus land inter alia to cooperative societies of landless agricultural labourers. Compensation is given by the principal Act for vesting of surplus land of land-holders. With this prefaratory note, it is important now to set out the relevant Sections of the aforesaid Act.
“Section 3. Definitions. In this Ac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
