Ram Bahadur Singh vs Prescribed Authority and others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Staterespondents.

Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act, 1960'') culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19th/27/29 May, 1976, wherein 11.70 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the recorded tenure holder preferred Appeal No. 541 of 1976 under Section 13 of Act, 1960 before the District Judge, Hamirpur. The appeal was partly allowed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 31st January, 1977 and it was declared that the petitioner had 6.38 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3864 of 1977. The writ petition was dismissed by the writ court vide order dated 23rd March, 1979 and the order of the appellate court dated 31st January, 1977 was affirmed. Meaning thereby that the recorded tenure holder was held to have 6.38 acres of irrigated land as surplus. In terms of the order so passed by the writ court, proceedings were initiated for taking possession of the surplus land. At this stage, petitioner filed fresh objections stating therein that subsequent to the aforesaid proceedings, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th March, 1982 under Section 10 (2) of Act, 1960, to which objections were filed. An order was passed by the Prescribed Authority recording therein that the recorded tenure holder had 8.95 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order under Section 13 of Act, 1960 being Ceiling Appeal No. 18 of 1985. The appeal was allowed on 15th October, 1985 by the Additional District Judge, Hamirpur and it has been held that the recorded tenure holder did not have any surplus land. Therefore, the question of taking possession of the surplus land as per order dated 31st January, 1977 does not arise. Objection so raised on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order dated 6th March, 1990. It has been held that the possession of the surplus land was required to be taken immediately on conclusion of the ceiling proceedings at the appellate stage in the year 1979. If possession of the surplus land had not been taken, in pursuance thereof, no objection can be taken by the petitioner because of subsequent proceedings initiated in the year 1982, which were misconceived. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent proceedings under Section 10 (2) of Act, 1960 will render the earlier proceedings as abated and no action can be taken in pursuance of earlier order dated 31st January, 1977. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohar Singh and others v. Third Additional District Judge, Muzqffarnagar and another, passed in Writ Petition No. 2614 of 1977 decided on 29th November, 1978, wherein it was held that once a second notice was issued to the recorded tenure holder with the aid of the provision contained in Section 27 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, then the earlier proceedings stood abated.

For appreciating the said plea, the Court may refer to Section 27 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (U. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1975), which reads as follows :

"27. Transitory provisions. (1) All proceedings under subsections (3) to (7) of Section 14 of the principal Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance pending before any Court or authority immediately before the date of such commencement shall abate.

(2) Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenurehold''T has been made under the principal Act before January 17, 1975 and the Prescribed Authority is required to redetermine the surplus land under Section 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act II of 1975), then notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XVII of 1973), every appeal under Section 13 of the principal Act or other proceedings in relation to such appeal, preferred against the said order on or after January 17, 1975, and pending immediately before the date of commencement of this Ordinance shall abate.

(3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenureholder has been made under the principal Act before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may at any time within a period of two years from the commencement of this Ordinance redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Ordinance, notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination of surplus land.

(4) The provisions of Section 13 of the principal Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every order redetermining surplus land under subsection (3) of this section or Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 :

Prouided that the period of thirty days shall, in the case of an appeal against the order referred to in Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974, be computed from the date of such order or the date of commencement of this Ordinance, whichever is later.

(5) The provisions of Section 13A of the principal Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every redetermination of surplus land under this section or under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974.

(6) Where any tenureholder has received before June 8, 1973, any compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the principal Act read with the Schedule, as they existed before the commencement of this Ordinance, then notwithstanding the amendments made in the said Chapter and the Schedule by this Ordinance, no tenureholder shall be liable to refund the whole or part of any such compensation to the State Government."

Suffice it to record that subsections (1) and (2) of Section 27 have no application in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the ceiling limits of the petitioner were determined under an order dated 29th May, 1976 and appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 31st January, 1977, which made the determination final.

Subsection (3) of Section 27 will also have no application in the facts of the present case, as the ceiling limits of the recorded tenure holder were determined subsequent to the date of commencement of the Ordinance, 1975, le., 10th day of October, 1975.

This Court finds that the second notice issued to the petitioner in the year 1982 is not referable to any of the provisions contained in Section 27 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application.

Notice under Section 27 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 could be issued within two years of the enforcement of the said Ordinance. In the facts of the present case, second notice was issued in the year 1982. Therefore, the plea that the earlier proceedings stood abated cannot be accepted by this Court.

This Court may record that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any other provisions under which the second notice could be issued in the year 1982 and therefore, in the facts of the present case, this Court holds that subsequent notice of 1982 is of no legal consequence.

The determination of the ceiling limits of the petitioner under the order of the appellate authority dated 31st January, 1977 is final as per Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1960. The authoriteis are entiteld to take possession of the surplus land in pursuance thereof.

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.