The court ruled that under the G.E.T.A Act, the procedure for determining ceiling area must be followed as per its own rules, separate from those of the Ceiling Act.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 - Section 6-A - Separation of ceiling area - Writ petitioners contested validity of a notice regarding area retention; the court found the notice invalid based on misrepresentation of area, directing fresh proceedings under Section 6-A of the G.E.T.A Act. (Paras 1, 2, 30, 36)

(B) Authority of Rules - The court distinguished between the applicability of the Ceiling Act and the G.E.T.A Act; holding that the rules under the G.E.T.A Act govern procedures for ceiling area determination, not those under the Ceiling Act. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, daughters of a lessee under a long-term government lease, challenged a notice limiting their land retention to 30 acres based on a miscalculation, seeking a proper calculation under G.E.T.A Act.

Findings of Court:
The Single Judge's direction for fresh proceedings was upheld as the notice was based on an erroneous area definition, confirming the G.E.T.A Act's provisions for ceiling determinations.

Issues: The core issues were whether the notice issued by the Collector was valid and if the procedure for determining ceiling area falls under the G.E.T.A Act or the Ceiling Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that while the Ceiling Act defines the ceiling area, the procedures under the G.E.T.A Act must guide the determination process without explicitly applying the Ceiling Act’s rules.

Result: The Special Appeal was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to previous court judgment and proceedings under g.e.t.a. act. (Para 1 , 3 , 20)
2. appellants argue for determination procedure under ceiling act. (Para 2 , 4 , 21 , 22)
3. court's interpretation of g.e.t.a. act and ceiling act. (Para 12 , 16 , 34 , 35)
4. rules of g.e.t.a. act critical for its implementation. (Para 25 , 26 , 29)
5. conclusion dismissing the special appeal. (Para 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Writ petitioners have filed this intra-court appeal challenging judgment and order dated 21.02.2014 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005. By the said judgment, their writ petition was partly allowed, notice issued to them by Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, on 12.08.2005 was set aside and the Collector was directed to initiate proceedings afresh as per law and in view of Section 6-A of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959) (hereinafter referred as “G.E.T.A. Act”).

2. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants at the very outset submitted that appellants are challenging the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge qua the determination made in para 29 only and they are satisfied with the remaining judgment. Para 29 of the impugned judgment is extracted below:-

“29. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which can be said to be acceptable, is that 30 acres area has been wrongly mentioned in the notice and, therefore, on this count, the notice is not valid. The impugned notice issued by the Collector, on this count only, is set aside. Writ Petition No. 962 of 2005 (MS) and Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS) are partly allowed and the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and in view of Section 6-A, quoted above, for determination of the ceiling area and separation of surplus area and to take steps accordingly against those tenure holders, who were recorded at the time of determination of lease or their successors in interest.”

3. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in view of provision contained in Section 6-A of G.E.T.A Act, not only the ceiling area has to be determined as per provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961) (hereinafter referred as “Ceiling Act”), but the procedure as prescribed in Ceiling Act and Rules framed thereunder has to be followed for determination and demarcation of ceiling area, separation of surplus area, and taking of possession over surplus area, etc.

4. In the writ petition, appellants have challenged the Award dated 10.08.2005 given by Kumaon Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital as Arbitrator and they also challenged a notice issued in G.E.T.A. Form 10, under Rule 23 of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Rules, 1960.

5. The impugned judgment reveals that challenge to the arbitral award, rendered by Commissioner, was given up by appellants before learned Single Judge. Before this Court also, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellants are not challenging the award and their challenge is limited to the observation made in para 29 which provides that proceedings for determining ceiling area have to be initiated under Section 6-A of G.E.T.A Act.

6. For better understanding of the case, brief background facts would be necessary, which are stated herein below.

7. State Government leased out about 5200 acres of land, situate in 12 different villages of Rudrapur pargana of erstwhile District Nainital for a term of 99 years effective from 01.10.1932, in favour of one Sri Prag Narayan Aggarwal. Mr. Prag Narayan Aggarwal passed away in 1938, leaving behind six sons. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in his counter affidavit dated 30.06.2005 filed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005 by appellants, has stated that out of the land leased out