Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Asharfi Lal – Petitioner
Versus
Iii A.D.J. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 4268 of 1984
Decided On : 23-05-2024
CEILING - LAND HOLDINGS - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 3(7), 5(1), 5(3)(b), 10(2), 13 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, particularly focusing on the definition of 'family' and the criteria for determining surplus land. It concluded that the number of family members should be assessed based on the date of issuance of notice rather than the date of the amending act, allowing the petitioner to retain additional land based on the actual family size at the time of notice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order declaring 4.63 acres of his land as surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioner argued that he had six family members at the time of the notice, thus entitled to retain additional land, while the authorities contended that only four family members were considered based on the date of the amending act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority's interpretation of the law was erroneous. It held that the family members should be counted based on the date of the notice, not the date of the amending act, thus allowing the petitioner to retain additional land.
Issues: Whether the number of family members for determining surplus land should be assessed on the date of the notice or the date of the introduction of the amending act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the definition of 'family' in the Act does not differentiate between major and minor members, and the count of family members should reflect the actual situation at the time of the notice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge were set aside, directing recalculation of the surplus area considering the correct number of family members.
JUDGMENT :
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 23.11.1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Tehsil Puwaya, District Shahjahanpur by which he has declared 4.63 acre surplus land held by the petitioner, and also the order dated 16.01.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1983 preferred by the petitioner under Section 13 of The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960).
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was issued a notice on 02.06.1983 under Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1960 on the ground that the petitioner had 22.65 acres of irrigation land whereas, under the Act 1960, he could retain only 18.02-acre land, thus, the petitioner was having 4.63-acre excess land, therefore, why the excess land of 4.63 acres held by the petitioner be not declared as surplus land.
4. The petitioner submitted a reply contending inter-alia that the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1960 on 02.06.1983, and on the date of the notice, the family of the petitioner consisted of the petitioner, namely, Asharfi Lal, his wife, three daughters and two sons. His further case was that his one daughter was married on the date of notice, therefore, after excluding the married daughter, there are six family members still in the family of the petitioner, therefore, in view of Section 5 (3) (b) of the Act, 1960, the petitioner is entitled to retain two hectares extra land. Thus, the petitioner has no excess land.
5. The Ceiling Authority repelled the aforesaid contention by holding that the family members of the tenure holder shall be considered on the date of introduction of the amending act i.e. 08.06.1973 and not on the date of the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960, and since in the present case, one son and daughter of the petitioner were born in the year 1975 and 1979 respectively after coming into force the amending act, therefore, on the date of amending act, there were only four family members in the family of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner had 4.63 acres excess land. Besides the above, the other issues framed by the Prescribed Authority were decided against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960 challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority. The appellate authority noted that the only contention advanced by the petitioner was whether the family members of the tenure holders as provided in Section 3 (7) of the Act, 1960 shall be considered on the date of introduction of amending act or the date of issuance of the notice.
7. The appellate authority after considering the scheme of the Act held that if Section 5(3) (b) of the Act is read along with Section 5(1) of the Act, 1960, it is manifest that the family member of the tenure holder is to be seen on the date of introduction of the amending act i.e. 08.06.1973, and since in the case in hand, the petitioner on the date of introduction of the amending act had only four family members as one daughter and son were born to the petitioner after the introduction of the amending act, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 5(3) (b) of the Act, 1960. Accordingly, the appellate authority did not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner and rejected the appeal.
8. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is not in dispute in the present case that the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960 had been issued on 02.06.1983. It is also not in dispute that one son and one daughter of the petitioner were born in the year 1975 and 1979 respectively i.e. before the issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of th
The court affirmed that changes in the U.P. Ceilings Act necessitate a re-determination of surplus land in adherence to legislative amendments, disallowing re-litigation on previously settled land is....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to conform to the legal principles and observations made by the higher courts, particularly the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High ....
The court reaffirmed that once a matter has been adjudicated and reached finality, further litigation on the same issue is barred by res judicata.
The court confirmed that bid lands are included under the definitions of 'land' and 'agriculture' in the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, reaffirming the limited scope of remand orders.
Point of Law : S. 11(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 permits tenure-holders to file objections. Such tenure holders may be those who have been served with a notice and the....
Authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling Act must prove surplus claims with adequate evidence; failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and misclassification of land holdings rendered th....
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
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
