Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 17

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)
S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Hardev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority, Kashipur and Another – Respondents
With
Jamaluddin and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2295, 2296 of 2010
Decided On : 10-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nagendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Y.P.Singh,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gupta,Adv. Mr. Vipul Maheshwari,Adv. For M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Rights and obligations between Government as lessor of land and grantee as lessee of land are to be regulated by terms of grant – A sub-lease created for agricultural purposes having been exempted from operation of conditions and no vested right shall be created in sub-lease and he cannot claim any rights contrary to terms of grant.

Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – Section 5 and 10 read with Sections 3(9) and 3(17) – Declaration as surplus land – Very purpose behind enactment of Ceiling Act is to prescribe a ceiling limit on area of land held by a ‘tenure holder’ for the purpose of securing interest of community at large to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers with a view to have equitable distribution of land – Any transfer of land by the Government Lessee was subject to fulfilment of conditions of government lease and sub-lease and non-compliance of conditions and transfer made without fulfilling conditions would be void – Though, conditions of grant allowed sub-lease of land in ordinary course of agriculture but contrary to terms of grant, sub-lessee can claim no independent tenancy right so as to frustrate terms and tenure of grant, as sub-lease executed for ordinary course of agriculture cannot be treated as transfer for want of compliance of conditions enumerated in Clause itself – Appellants in their capacity as sub-lessee shall not acquire status of an independent tenure holder – Rights and obligations between Government as lessor of land and grantee as lessee of land are to be regulated by terms of grant – Terms of grant clearly postulates transfer of land by Government Lessee subject to fulfillment of certain conditions – A sub-lease created for agricultural purposes having been exempted from operation of conditions and no vested right shall be created in sub-lease and he cannot claim any rights contrary to terms of grant – Provisions of Ceiling Act would be applicable in case of grantee of Government under a lease agreement – Grantee being a lessee from Government has no right to transfer land without fulfilling conditions stipulated in Clause 9 of lease deed – Terms of lease deed though provide for sub-lease for agricultural purposes but sub-lessees can claim no independent rights as a tenure holder – Appellant being a sub-lessee continues to be an ostensible holder of land and government grantee, Respondent No. 2, to be real holder and ceiling authorities as well as High Court have rightly dismissed claim of appellant – Appeals allowed. (Paras 18, 26, 28, 31, 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.08.2008 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissing the two Writ Petitions based on identical facts raising common questions of law, filed by the appellants herein. Writ petitions arose out of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Findings of Court:
Terms of the grant clearly postulates transfer of the land by Government Lessee subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. A sub-lease created for agricultural purposes having been exempted from operation of the conditions and no vested right shall be created in sub-lease and he cannot claim any rights contrary to the terms of the grant.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing the two Writ Petitions based on identical facts raising common questions of law, filed by the appellants herein. Writ Petitions arose out of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1960’).

Facts

2. The factual matrix of two Civil Appeals being identical, reference is being made to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2010 which are as under:

The Secretary of State for India executed a lease deed dated 25.08.1920 under the Government Grants Act, 1895 (Act No. 15 of 1895) in favour of one Lala Khushi Ram. On demise of Lala Khushi Ram, the lease hold rights were inherited by ‘Harikishan Lal’ Respondent No. 2 herein, as a successor. He executed a registered sub-lease for agricultural purposes of an area measuring 2.49 acres in favour of the Appellants herein.

3. The Prescribed Authority, Kashipur (Respondent No. 1 herein), issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 to Respondent No. 2 herein, the Government Lessee, proposing to declare certain area of land held by him as surplus.

4. Vide order dated 28.07.1978, respondent no. 1 declared the land measuring 2 Bigha 16 Biswa of Khasra No. 254, 1 Bigha 11 Biswa of Khasra No. 255, 8 Bigha 16 Biswa of Khasra No. 256 and 2 Bigha 16 Biswa of Khasra No. 257, total admeasuring 15 Bigha, 16 Biswa as surplus land in the hands of the Government Lessee. The land declared surplus included the land sub-let to the appellant by Respondent No. 2, the Government Lessee.

5. On attaining knowledge of the fact that the land sub-let to him was included in the land declared surplus in the hands of Government Lessee, the appellant made an application under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960, which came to be dismissed by Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the appellant has no locus to maintain the said application. The appellant challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 9048 of 1979 which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the objections filed by the appellant under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960.

6. After remand, the Prescribed Authority again dismissed the application vide order dated 12.04.1982 mainly on following two grounds:

(ii) The conditions postulated in Clause 9 of the lease deed for transfer of land or portion thereof by the Government Lessee were not followed before creating a sub-lease in favour of appellant.

7. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant by way of Ceiling Appeal before the Additional District Judge, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.08.1984. Consequently, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14911/1984.

8. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, State of Uttaranchal came into existence and since the land in question fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the newly created High Court for Uttaranchal, the Writ Petition came to be transferred there and eventually got dismissed for want of prosecution. Restoration application made by the appellant for recall of the order too was dismissed and the appellant approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which came to be allowed and the Writ Petition was restored to its original number.

9. Vide Common impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions.

10. The High Court in the impugned common order though observed that the appellants herein being sub-lessees would be tenure holder as per sub-Section 9(3) of the Ceiling Act but refused to extend the benefit to the appellant in vie