Back
High Court of Allahabad
H.N. Seth, V.K. Mehrotra, JJ.
Horam Singh – Appellant
Versus
District Judge – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 12987 of 1975
Decided On : Sep 20, 1978
U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act - Determination of Surplus Land - Deceased Tenure-Holder - Rule 19 - Interpretation and Validity:
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the interpretation of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, particularly the provisions related to the determination of surplus land and the rights of heirs of deceased tenure-holders. The court was tasked with answering specific questions regarding the application of the Act in various scenarios.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act did not contemplate the determination of surplus land for tenure-holders who died before the publication of a general notice under Section 9 of the Act. It also held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 19, which purported to allow the determination of ceiling area for deceased tenure-holders, was ultra vires and invalid. However, sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 19, which dealt with the service of notices on the legal representatives of deceased tenure-holders, were held to be valid and within the rule-making powers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act contemplated the determination of surplus land for tenure-holders who died before the publication of a general notice under Section 9? 2. Whether sub-rule (2) of Rule 19, which allowed the determination of ceiling area for deceased tenure-holders, was valid? 3. Whether proceedings could be taken to declare the land of a tenure-holder who died on the date of notification under Section 9 of the Act as surplus? 4. Whether a general notice under Section 9 had to be reissued if a recorded tenure-holder died soon after its publication? 5. Whether it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority to reissue notices under Section 9 (1) and (2) of the Act if a tenure-holder died soon after the publication of a general notice in the official gazette?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 44, along with the relevant rules framed under Section 44. It emphasized the importance of strictly construing expropriatory enactments like the Act and interpreting the procedural provisions in a way that made them effective. The court held that the Act did not provide any mechanism for determining the surplus land of tenure-holders who died before the issuance of a general notice under Section 9(2) and that sub-rule (2) of Rule 19, which purported to address this situation, was beyond the rule-making authority and inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court answered the questions referred to it as follows: 1. No proceedings for determining the surplus land of a tenure-holder who died after 8th June 1973 and before the publication of a notice under Section 9 of the Act could be taken, and sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 was ultra vires and could not be relied upon. 2. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 19 were within the powers of the rule-making authority and were not repugnant to the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 3. No proceedings for declaring the land of a tenure-holder who died on the date of notification under Section 9 of the Act as surplus could be taken. 4. No proceedings under Sections 9 and 10 could be taken in respect of the holding of a tenure-holder who died before the publication of a general notice under Section 9. 5. If a recorded tenure-holder died soon after the publication of a general notice in the official gazette, it was not necessary for the Prescribed Authority to reissue a notice under Section 9 (1) and 9 (2) of the Act. It was sufficient to serve the notice on the legal representatives of the tenure-holder in accordance with Rule 19 (3) and 19 (4).
H.N. Seth, J.
1. (FOR self and FOR V. K. Mehrotra, J.) :-By his order dt. 29-3-1978, a learned single Judge of this Court referred following questions of law FOR opinion to a larger Bench 1.When a tenure-holder dies after 8th June 1973 and beFORe the publication of notice under Section 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act what should be the date FOR determining the surplus area of a tenure-holder FOR the purposes of determining the surplus area in view of Rule 19 of the Act ? 2.Whether Rule 19 read with its sub-clauses 2-4 are within the powers of rule making authority or they are against the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act which speak about the tenure-holder i. e. the real and living tenure-holder on the date when the notice is to be issued ? 3.Can determination of surplus area of a tenure-holder who is dead on the date of notification under Section 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act be made ignoring the right of the heirs of the deceased tenure-holder on that date ? 4.If the notice under Section 9 has been issued when the tenure-holder was no more in this world can notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act be issued without publishing general notice calling upon the heirs of the tenure-holder to submit the statement contemplated by law under Section 9 of the Act ? 5.If the recorded tenure-holder dies soon after the publication of general notice in the official gazette (e. g. beFORe the expiry of 30 days), is it necessary FOR the Prescribed Authority to reissue notices under Section 9 (1) and (2) of the Act to tenure-holder to comply with the provisions of the Act ? BeFORe dealing with the questions referred to us, it will, we think, be convenient to notice few salient features of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended from time to time. The Act which was passed inter alia to provide FOR acquisition of land FOR its equitable distribution and to make the surplus land available FOR distribution amongst landless agricultural labourers, was enFORced in whole of U. P. with effect from 8th June, 1965. Section 5 of the Act lays down that on and from the commencement of the Act no tenure-holder was to be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout the State of U.P. any land in excess of Ceiling area applicable to him. The Act then went on to state the extent of ceiling area applicable to tenure-holders as also the principles FOR computing the same. Whereas the mechanism, FOR determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder and the surplus land if any held by him on the date of coming into FORce of the Act, was laid down in Sections 9 to 12 of the Act, that FOR determining the ceiling area and the surplus land which a tenure-holder happened to hold after the date of commencement of the Act was laid down in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act provided the procedure FOR acquisition of land declared as surplus and in Chapter IV of the Act provision was made FOR disposal and settlement of surplus land. Section 44 of the Act enabled the State Government to make rules FOR carrying out the purposes of the Act including those specified in subsection (2) thereof.
2. SUBSEQUENTLY the State Legislature enacted an Act entitled Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972, U. P. Act XVIII of 1973, which was enforced with effect from 8th June, 1973, whereby it made substantial changes in regard to principles that had to be adopted in computing the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holders. Section 5 as substituted by the aforesaid amendment Act provided that on and after the date on which the amendment Act came into force, no tenure holder was to be entitled to hold in aggregate, throughout U. P. any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The amendment Act also introduced a new sub- section (2) to Sec. 9 of the Act ma
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
