IMPORTANT POINT
Where the tenure holder entered into an agreement to sell some of his lands prior to the appointed day under the Ceiling Act and parted with possession thereof said land was liable to be included in his holdings.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-In this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India the appellant State of Uttar Pradesh has brought in challenge the judgment and order 23rd July 1980 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-State against the order of the Additional District Judge, Agra in proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The question posed for our consideration is short one, namely, whether a tenure-holder who has entered into agreement to sell some of his lands prior to the appointed day and has parted with possession thereof is liable to include in his holding the said lands when actual sale of these lands has not taken place. The High Court has answered this question against the appellant-State.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-State that the said decision of the High Court is erroneous in law. We may mention that at the time of issuance of notice in these proceedings it was clearly indicated to the respondent tenure-holder that the notice was being issued in view of paragraph (g) of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin1. We will refer to the said judgment a little later.

3. In the first instance we may glance through the introductory facts leading to these proceedings. Respondent No.3 was issued a notice under Section 10 sub-section (2) of the Act by the competent authority functioning under the Act for submitting his objections against the statements prepared under the said Section by the authority indicating various lands held by Respondents No. 3 on the appointed day. Which were liable to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the said respondent was holding any excess land above the permissible ceiling area which would naturally vest in the State. Respondent No.3 while filing his objections submitted that he had transferred 33 Bighas 17 Biswas land to one Shri Ram Het and Shri Kali Charan on 30th March 1970. He also transferred 30 Bighas land to Shri Brij Kishore on 8th March 1970. According to him the said lands were, therefore, not liable to be included in his holdings a tenure-holder for the purpose of deciding whether his holding exceeded the ceiling limit as per Section 5(1) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority held that the aforesaid lands covered by the Agreements to Sell which were not followed up by Sale Deeds remained in the ownership and holding of the respondent tenure-holder and were liable to be included for the purpose of calculating the permissible land within the ceiling area as per Section 5(1) of the Act.

4. Respondent No. 3 carried the matter in appeal. The Additional District Judge, Agra who heard the appeal came to the conclusion that the aforesaid lands which were covered by Agreements to Sell could not be included within the permissible ceiling limit of lands held by the tenure-holder as the transferees were protected by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. These lands, therefore, could not be said to be possessed and held by Respondent No. 3 on the appointed day and were liable to be excluded from the calculation of ceiling area of the land holding available to Respondent No.3. The appeal was accordingly allowed. The order of the learned Prescribed Authority determining 31 Bighas 10 Biswas 15 Biswansis land was modified to the extent that there were only 2 Bighas 4 Biswas 7 Biswansis lands in terms of irrigated area available with the tenure-holder as surplus. The appellant-State carried the matter in writ petition before the High Court being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Authority. In the said writ petition a learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the aforesaid lands covered by the Agreements to Sell could not be said to be comprised of the holding of Respondent No.3 on the appointed day