Gurudeep Singh & Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

All these four writ petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Ceiling Act"). These writ petitions were initially filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, where counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit were exchanged between the parties and subsequently they stood transferred to this Court, after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttaranchal High Court.- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Allahabad shall, as from the appointed day, have no jurisdiction in respect of the transferred territory. (2) Such proceedings in the High Court at Allahabad immediate before the appointed day as are certified, whether before or after that day, by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court of Uttaranchal shall, as soon as may be after such certification, be transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and 92) of this section or in Section 28, but save as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Allahabad shall have, and the High Court of Uttaranchal shall not have, jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any order passed by the High Court at Allahabad before the appointed day : Provided that if after any such proceedings have been entertained by the High Court at Allahabad, it appears to the Chief Justice of that High Court that they ought to be transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal, he shall order that they shall be so transferred, and such proceedings shall thereupon be transferred accordingly. (4) Any order made by the High Court of Allahabad- (a) before the appointed day, in any proceedings transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal by virtue of sub-section (2), or (b) in any proceedings with respect to which the High Court at Allahabad retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub-section (3), shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of the High Court at Allahabad, but also as an order made by the High Court of Uttaranchal."

As all the four matters pertain to the land situated in the two villages i.e. "Althal Buzurg" and "Bukkanpur", and they raise a common question of law, these are being heard together and decided by a common order. All the same, for the sake of convenience, unless the context specifically so requires the facts which will be stated here will be the one pertaining to Writ Petition (M/S) No.43387 of 1999 (New No. 121A of 2006).

There are number of petitioners in each of the petitions. For example, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 43387 of 1999, they are in all 90. Similarly in other writ petitions as well there are more than one petitioners.

The petitioners claim to be the tenure holders of the land which they have specifically mentioned in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, where a break up has been given, describing their respective "Khasras" (plots numbers) and the area of the land in that particular plot. From the annexure which they have annexed to the writ petition it appears that the holding of each person though scattered in different plots, nevertheless put together in each case would not be more than 7.30 hectares, which is the ceiling limit.

As per Section 5 of the Ceiling Act, ceiling was to be imposed on land holdings of a tenure holder, and if the land was beyond the ceiling limits, the surplus land had to be surrendered to the State. For calculating the surplus land both the irrigated and unirrigated land was to be measured, their criteria being different. The land in question is an irrigated land. The holding over and above 7.30 hectares of land was hence liable to be considered as surplus.

The "Prescribed Authority" which has been defined under sub-section (13) of Section 3 of the Ceiling Act is an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector First Class and has been empowered by the State Government, by notification in the Gazette, to perform the functions of the Prescribed Authority.

The Prescribed Authority had first given a notice under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act which was published in the official gazette. It called upon every tenure holder who has holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, on the date of enforcement of this Act to submit within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed.

Section 9 of the Act reads as under:-

"Section 9. General notice to tenure-holders holding land in excess of ceiling area for submission of statement in respect thereof. - (1) As soon as may be, after the date of enforcement of this Act, the Prescribed Authority shall, by general notice, published in the Official Gazette, call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the date of enforcement of this Act, to submit to him within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall also indicate the plot or plots for which he claims exemption and also those which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him under the provisions of this Act.

(2) As soon as may be after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, the Prescribed Authority shall, by like general notice, call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the enforcement of said Act, to submit to him within 30 days of publication of such notice a statement referred to in sub-section (1)]:

Provided that any time after October 10, 1975, the Prescribed Authority may, by notice, call upon any tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date, to submit to him within thirty days from the date of service of such notice a statement referred to in sub-section (1) or any information pertaining thereto].

(2-A) Every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area on January 24, 1971, or at any time thereafter who has not submitted the statement referred to in sub-section (2) and in respect of whom no proceeding under this Act is pending on October 10, 1975 shall, within thirty days from the said date furnish to the Prescribed Authority a statement containing particulars of all land -

(a) held by him and the members of his family on January 24, 1971;

(b) acquired or disposed of by him or by members of his family between January 24, 1971 and October 10, 1975.

(3) Where the tenure-holder's wife holds any land which is liable to be aggregated with the land held by the tenure-holder for purposes of determination of the ceiling area, the tenure-holder shall, along with his statement referred to in sub-section (1), also file the consent of his wife to the choice in respect of the plot or plots which they would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to them and where his wife's consent is not so obtained the Prescribed Authority shall cause the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 10 to be served on her separately."

The next proceedings lie under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act provides that in case a tenure holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted under Section 9, a duty has been cast upon the Prescribed Authority to "make such enquiry as he may consider necessary either by himself or by any person subordinate to him, and prepare a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall in particular indicate the land, if any, exempted under Section 6 and the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land". Thereafter, a notice has to be served by the Prescribed Authority to the tenure holder, under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act as to why the statement be not taken as correct and the land above the ceiling limits be declared as "surplus", or as the case might be.

Section 10 of the Act reads as under:-

"Section 10. Notice to tenure-holders failing to submit a statement or submitting an incomplete or incorrect statement. - (1) In every case where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted under Section 9, the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary either by himself or by any person subordinate to him, cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall in particular indicate the land, if any, exempted under Section 6 and the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land.

(2) The Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause to be served upon every such tenure-holder in such manner as may be prescribed, a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-section (1) calling upon him to show cause within a period specified in the notice, why the statement be not taken as correct. The period specified shall not be less than ten days from the date of service of the notice."

At this stage, it becomes necessary to mention the Company, which has an important role to play in the present case. This Company is called as the "Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited, Saharanpur", which was a Company registered under the Companies Act. A vast area of land which measured in thousands of "bighas" 1 bigha equal to 0.166 acre and which forms the part of the "Landhora Estate" in Haridwar Present district Haridwar which is now a part of Uttarakhand was at the relevant time, a part of district Saharanpur, in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, which was under the control of the Court of wards at the relevant time, was given on lease in the year 1944 to three persons, namely, Sri Athar Hussain Khawaja, Sri Khan Bahadur and Sri Seth Tajuddin. Sri Athar Hussain Khwaja who was managing one-third (or possibly even more), of the said property, transferred this property in the name of the company called "Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited, Saharanpur". Regarding the remaining part of the land we are presently not concerned. In the present case, we are only concerned with the part of the land which was transferred by Sri Athar Hussain Khwaja to this company, of which he was the Managing Director and the remaining Directors were his close relatives!

As already referred about, the present case pertains to the land situated in two villages, namely, "Althal Buzurg" and "Bukkanpur", which at the relevant time were in District Saharanpur but now a part of District Haridwar, which is in Uttarakhand. A notice was initially given under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act to this company called "Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Company Limited, Saharanpur", (from hereinafter referred to as "Agricultural Syndicate") that he is only entitled to hold a part of the land and the remaining land is liable to be surrendered by him. In the said proceedings, out of the total land of 822 bigha, 6 biswa and 15 bishwansi, 35 bigha 11 biswa and 16 bishwansi (i.e. 7.30 hectares) was retained by the Agricultural Syndicate and the remaining 786 bigha, 15 biswa and 19 bishwansi was declared as surplus and was to vest with the State under Section 14 (1) of the Ceiling Act. Against the said order, the Agricultural Syndicate filed an appeal. Four other appeals were also filed by the persons who claimed to be the actual tenure holders on this land. Their appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on a technicality that their name was not recorded as tenure holders in the revenue records. This was the order dated 15.01.1987. Aggrieved, the then tenure holders filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 1686 of 1987 and 3003 of 1987. These two petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court and the order dated 09.05.1983 of the Prescribed Authority as well as the order dated 15.01.1987 passed by the appellate authority were set aside vide order dated 24.09.1993 of the High Court.

The petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions were either the ancestors or the predecessors in interest, claim the present petitioners, although the State denies this claim. The petitioners had raised a plea (before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad), that the Agricultural Syndicate which has been held to be the only tenure holder is in fact a "non-entity" and this company was formed by Sri Athar Hussain Khwaja purely in order to defeat the ceiling limits and the law, and was nothing more than an abuse of the process of law. The transfer of the land by Sri Athar Hussain Khwaja in the name of the company in the year 1944 is a sham, it was void ab initio.

It is true that there were enough evidence before the courts below which proved that the company was never engaged in any form of agriculture activities. The reports and the documents to this effect were before the courts below, including the revenue courts, which had categorically held that the very act of the creation of this company was a delusion. It was done to mislead the authorities and was an abuse of the process of law.

Before we deal with this aspect and refer to the various statements as to recording of this Agricultural Syndicate, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law, in order to determine who is the actual tenure holder under the Ceiling Act.

The "tenure holder" is defined under sub-section (17) of Section 3 of the Ceiling Act, which reads as under:-

"3. Definitions.-

(17) "tenure-holder" means a person who is the holder of a holding, but except in Chapter III does not include-

(a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder;

(b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder;"

What is a "holding" again is defined under sub-section (9) of Section 3 of the Ceiling Act, which reads as under:-

"3. Definitions.-

(9) "holding" means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sub-lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease;"

The definition of "holding" which in turn would define as to who would be the tenure holder is an extremely wide definition. It definitely includes the actual tiller of the land, the one who is occupying the land and ploughing the field. It matters little as to under what capacity he is doing so.

Now it would be necessary to refer to some of the orders which have been passed by the revenue authorities in revenue proceedings such as for the declaration, initiated under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, since these proceedings were made prior to the enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and at that time U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was in force.

The suit for declaration filed by the individual tenure holder was dismissed by the Assistant Collector First Class vide order dated 24.04.1950 on grounds that it was the name of the "Company", which was recorded as tenure holder in the revenue records. The Company here is the same i.e., Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Company Limited, Saharanpur. Against the order of the Assistant Collector First Class, appeals were filed by these tenure holders before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, which were allowed and the suit was decreed vide order dated 08.02.1951 by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut. This is what the Additional Commissioner had said about the status of this company and the transfer of the land by Sri Athar Hussain Khwaja in favour of this Company.

"Khawaja Athar Husain is only a thekedar and in anticipation that the theka may be terminated he has executed a lease made of a Company of which he is himself the Manager. With two selfish interest (1) If he would cultivate only as a khudkasht holder he would have to vacate the plots after the theka expired or is terminated. (2) he would actually preclude the action on thekedar of the said period, from becoming hereditary tenant when a bogus tenancy is created in a company under his own management. The land leased out by this alleged lease dated 2.11.1944 is more than 1600 high as of land atan annual rent of Rs. 1544/- (Sic : bigha of land at an annual rent of Rs.1544/-). Prima facie this rent is much below the economic rent, and as it is not even at the rate of Rs.1/- per bigha. Hence intimsically (Sic : intrinsically) also this alleged lease is farzi. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents. That this company is a registered body since 1.4.1929. But this is not the point in dispute here whether the company is farzi or genuine one. The company may be a registered body. The dispute is that the alleged lease is farzi. Just as a zamindar executes a farzi lease in favour of his son or other near relation to preclude the accrual of hereditary tenancy rights in favour of the actual tillers of the soil, the existence of the relation is not denied what is disputed is about the genuineness of the contract of tenancy.

Similarly here the plaintiffs contend that the alleged conferment of hereditary tenancy rights by the thekedar defendant nos. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 2 is farzi and bogus. The defendants have not produced a single independent witness to prove that this company carried on any cultivation over the plots in suit in three years 1352, fasli, 1353 fasli, 1354 fasli i.e. from the year of 1945 the commencement of the alleged tenancy in 1352. When the alleged lease in favour of the Agricultural Company was executed on 2.11.1944 Khwaja Athar Husain D.W.1 one Dilha D.W.2 who is a r/o another village and deposes about the management of this land wheh he took charge in September or October 1947 and the previous Patwari are the only witness producted by the defendants. The defendants have not produced a singly (Sic : single), independent witness of the locality to prove the cultivatory possession of the plots in suit by the defendant no. 2 Company Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate. The alleged Company has not produced any accounts showing that the agricultural operations were carried on by the Company as a tenant over the land in suit in the years 1352F. Thus hold (Sic : Thus it is held), on the above grounds that this alleged lease of 2.11.1944 in favour of defendant no. 2 is wholly farzi and a complete fraud to preclude the actual tillers of the soil from acquiring hereditary tenancy rights over the plots in suit."

The above order is an old document and at some places this order is either not legible or there are typing errors. The document is Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 121A of 2006.

As to the transaction made between 1946, it was held that in actual the lesser and lessee are both the same person.

It was also held by the appellate authority that it was a large track of land which the company was not able to cultivate but it was for the actual cultivators who are tilling the soil and therefore the very entry as cultivators was valid and it was held that the plaintiffs are the hereditary tenants of the plots. Against the said order, second appeals were filed being S.A. No. 863 of 1950-51 and 869 of 1950-51. The Board of Revenue also agreed with the findings of the appellate court i.e. the learned Commissioner and it also came to the same conclusion as regarding the status of the company and the transaction of the land given in favour of the company. It held as follows:-

"It is true that a duly registered company is a legal entity, distinct from its offices or members and it cannot be said that the lease was executed by Khwaja Athar Husain in his own name. It is however to be borne in mind that only seven persons are essential to form a registered company and the appellant has not cared to produce the Memorandum or Articles of Association to prove its membership or its personnel. In the scene of such a proof, it is judicially legitimately to infer that the company is nothing more than a make belief to keep the land in dispute in the possession of Khwaja Athar Husain and his family even if the theka is terminated, and at the same time to deprive the actual cultivators from acquiring the hereditary rights."

It may also be necessary to mention here that for the villages "Althal Buzurg" and "Bukkanpur" with which we are presently concerned, the consolidation proceedings were simultaneously initiated first by notification dated 30.03.1959 and during the first consolidation proceedings a reference in the matter reached the Settlement Officer in appeal in the court of Consolidation Officer. In the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, it was observed by the Consolidation Officer as regarding the status of the company as under:-

"As discussed above these called company was never existed and it was only the creation of the mind of Sri A.H. Khawaja. Therefore it (company) cannot acquire Bhumidari rights and therefore, entries recorded in the name of this company should go to the State with the supervision of Gram Sabha and the different objectors shall be the trespassers of Gram Sabha and as discussed earlier. I further order that the objectons of S/Sri A.H. Khawja, Sushil Malik, G. Shahnawaj Khan and others as discussed earlier, separately with separate case filed, are rejected. The entry of the name of company Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd. be expunged and recorded in the name of Gram Sabha."

These findings were placed before the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court and based on the above findings, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that both the courts i.e. the court of Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority in the ceiling proceedings have defaulted both on fact as well as on law. The ceiling courts have held the agricultural syndicate to be the tenure holder purely on the premise that the name of this Agricultural Company was recorded in the revenue record. For the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court this was a mistake on the part of the ceiling authorities. The ceiling authorities ought to have gone to the truth of the matter as a duty has been cast upon the Prescribed Authority, particularly under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act, inter alia, to hold an inquiry in order to ascertain the truth as to who is the actual tenure holder. This has never been done. The ceiling authorities proceeded to gave a finding merely on the basis of the revenue records and rejected the objections of the objectors regarding the agricultural syndicate to be a bogus entity. The learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court was surprised as to why the findings of the revenue authorities have not been noticed either by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate authority under the ceiling proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 24.09.1993 thus held that in view of the findings of the Consolidation Officer it was clear that in the ceiling proceedings the Prescribed Authority had failed to apply its mind to the real question, which was whether the Company was the actual tenure holder or was it the petitioners in terms of the definition given under the Ceiling Act. The learned Judge held as follows:-

"The question as to whether the respondent company was a tenure holder or the petitioners were the tenure holders had to be decided with reference to the definition of the terms tenure holder given in the Act on the basis of the material on record. The entry of a person in the revenue records not with-standing the prescribed authority on a dispute raise before, it, was duty bound to decide the question as to who was the tenure holder of the land in dispute within the meaning of the Act and constrained to observe the prescribed authority in the present case had not done its job well. As noticed earlier in the judgment the petitioners claimed to be the asami of the land in dispute but they may be said to be tenure holders within the meaning of section 3 (17) of the Act only if they are able to prove that they were asamies of Gaon Sabha or asamies filing within the purview of section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Their claim of having acquired sirdari right also could be examined on the basis of evidence on record and is dependent upon the question whether the land in dispute really belongs to the company or it belongs to the Gaon Sabha. It belongs to the company and the company was a bona fide entity, question of acquisition of sirdari right as against the company has to be examined with reference to the provisions of the section 209/210 of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951 and if the land had vested in Gaon Sabha the question of acquisition of right by the petitioner on the basis of their possession may not arise in view of the amendment made in section 210 of the U.P. Act no.1 of 1951. All these questions, in my opinion, required decision by a court of fact on the basis of evidence on record. Neither the prescribed authority nor the appellate authority has done this job. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prescribed authority was not justified in presuming the company the tenure holder merely on the basis of the revenue entries, previous judgment on the question ought to have been examined by the prescribed authority or the appellate authority. The appellate judgment giving this to writ petition no. 1686 of 1987 has been rendered without the appellate authority addressing itself on the relevant question and the relevant material on record. Similarly, the appellate judgment under challenge in writ petition no.... of 1987 has been rendered on irrelevant grounds of non-implement of certain persons who were, in my opinion, not at all necessary person. The impugned order cannot therefore, be sustained the matter has to be sent back to the prescribed authority for a decision afresh in accordance with law. It may be observed that the affect of declaratory decree, if any, in favour of any of the petitioners may be examined in the light of the provisions contained in section 5 (vi) of the act.

In the present result the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The Impugned orders dated 9.5.83 and 15.1.87 are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to reexamine the matter in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in the body of judgment. Each of the petitioner shall, however, file separate objection unless he is claiming himself to be co-tenure holder along with another petitioner in such event separate objection by such co-tenure holders may be filed and their cases may be registered separately. The prescribed authority may, however, consolidate all the cases and decided by the common order."

Now after the remand of the matter, it was heard again by the Prescribed Authority. This time the Prescribed Authority heard the objections of each of the petitioners (i.e. the petitioners in writ petition nos. 1686 of 1987 and 3003 of 1987) who claimed to be the actual tenure holders on the property, and on the basis of their objections the matter was registered separately for each of the objectors, under Section 11 of the Act.

It is extremely regrettable that once again the findings given by the Prescribed Authority are that since in the revenue records it is the Agricultural Syndicate which is registered as a tenure holder and hence the one who was considered as a tenure holder was the Agricultural Syndicate, and the Prescribed Authority rejected the claim of each of the objectors as they were not able to give any evidence to substantiate their claim as tenure holders, (as per the Prescribed Authority). Against the order of the Prescribed Authority different appeals were filed which were dismissed as the appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the company is a registered company under the Companies Act which is also being represented by a lawyer and it is the recorded tenure holder. However, out of these appeals, five appeals were allowed by the appellate authority for the reason that these appellants were able to show that they are the ones who had actually bought the land in auction and since they purchased the land in auction, they were held to be tenure holders.

In my view in this second round of litigation, the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority have committed the same mistake as was committed by them in the first round. The mistake of treating the Agricultural Syndicate as tenure holder!

A heavy duty has been cast upon the ceiling authorities under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act reads as under:-

"10. (1) In every case where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted under Section 9, the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary either by himself or by any person subordinate to him, cause to be prepared a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall in particular indicate the land, if any, exempted under Section 6 and the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land."

In Writ Petition no. 685 of 2005 agricultural syndicate has been made a party who is represented by Mr. J.C. Karnatak, Advocate who was never present before this Court at point of time in any of the multiple hearings before this Court, though his name is being regularly shown in the cause list. Even today he is not present before this Court. This Court has also been informed that there is also no counter affidavit on record, on behalf of the Agricultural Syndicate.

As we know the basic purpose of bringing the Ceiling Act was to complete the process initiated by the land reform legislations in the country, which was done in all the States. In the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, it was the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which brought the reform. The purpose of land reform legislations was to give land to the landless and to remove the huge disparity in the holdings within tenure holders. On the one hand there were large pieces of holdings running into thousand of "bighas" with some tenure holders who were frequently referred to as big landlords or zamindars, and on the other hand, there were landless agriculturists who were forced to work as agricultural labours for their survival. The very purpose of the Ceiling Act therefore was exproprietory in nature, which was to take away the land of the wealthy and distribute it for the public purposes, and in favour of those who were landless or small tenure holders. There can be no manner of doubt therefore that the Ceiling Act is a socially beneficial legislation. The Act came into force in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh from 08.06.1965.

Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act lays down that from the date of the enforcement of the Ceiling Act, no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate through-out U.P., any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.

"Ceiling area" has been defined under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Ceiling Act which is as follows:-

"3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

(2) "ceiling area" means the area of land not being land exempted under this Act, determined as such in accordance with the provisions of Section5;"

"Surplus land" has been defined under sub-section (16) of Section 3 of the Ceiling Act, which is as follows:-

"3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

(16) "surplus land" means land held by a tenure-holder in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, and includes any building, wells and trees existing thereon;"

In sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act the limit prescribed as ceiling area i.e. the land which could be retained by a tenure holder is given, which is 7.30 hectares of irrigated land for a family which is having not more than five members. Section 5 of the Ceiling Act is the relevant section which goes on to give a break up, the additional land, which can be kept in cases of number of families being more, etc.

Under Section 6 of the Ceiling Act certain category of land such as land being used for tea, coffee and rubber plantation, etc are exempted from the imposition of ceiling.

Sections 9 to 12 of the Ceiling Act lay down the process and the mechanism for determining the ceiling area and the surplus area. The surplus area of land which is so declared is then to be acquired by the concerned Collector under Section 14 of the Ceiling Act.

Chapter IV of the Ceiling Act i.e. from Section 25 to Section 31 is regarding "disposal and settlement of surplus land".

In Section 27 of the Ceiling Act details are given as to how the settlement of the surplus land has to be done. Firstly the State Government shall settle the surplus land for the community purposes in the village for planting of trees and other community purposes and the remaining land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the provisions given under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197.

Under Section 195 and Section 197 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 while admitting a person to the land, the Land Management Committee shall give the order of preference to such persons who are either landless, widow, etc or so residing in the circle or area. The land is given to landless or to such persons who are under some kind of difficulty or challenge in life, including the ones who belong to the weaker section of the society.

Sub-section (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 prescribes the limit of the area of such land which can be given to the landless which is not more than 3.125 acres.

In my considered opinion there has been a fatal flaw in these ceiling proceedings. The twice held proceedings have gone twice wrong in its appreciation as to the actual "tenure holder". Inspite of the flaws pointed out by the Allahabad High Court earlier, the ceiling authorities have yet again failed to appreciate the real meaning of "tenure holder". A tenure holder would always include the one who actually tills the land. In this case it has been an absentee landlord, in the form of an Agricultural Syndicate. The authorities have merely taken into account what was there on the revenue records, without appreciating the ground realities, though there were judicial pronouncements pointing out to the phony nature of the "Agricultural Syndicate". The vital error committed here is holding the "Agricultural Syndicate" to be the "tenure holder" and then determining the surplus. "Agriculture Syndicate" was a ruse, created by a big landlord to save his holdings, a reality which the ceiling authorities failed to appreciate. Since there is nothing like an "Agriculture Syndicate", it can never be treated as a "tenure holder".

On the other hand, however, the present petitioners have also not been able to show that they are the ones who ought to be treated as "tenure holder", as before the Prescribed Authority, apart from their objections, no worthwhile evidence was shown which could have strengthened their claim as "tenure holders".

In the light of these findings the entire land presently in dispute, must be declared as surplus and shall vest with the State. This shall, however, not include the land, where such appellants (under Section 3(17) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960) were declared as "tenure holders" as they had purchased this land in an auction, particularly now when it was not challenged further by the State Government.

The petitioners though have not been able to establish their claim as "tenure holder". Yet each claims to be still occupying an area of land which is less than 7.30 hectare which would be within the ceiling limits. Their claim, as already stated above as tenure holder though has failed, all the same, considering the small holdings each of them is presently occupying, and as stated before the Court, none has any other land except the present land in question, the State Government shall examine each case on its merits and if it comes to the conclusion that save this land they would be landless, then it shall allot the land in their favour in accordance with law, subject to the limitation of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

The writ petitions stand disposed with the above observations and directions.