Rani Prem Kunwar vs The District Judge and Others

M.P. Saxena, J.—This is a petition arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960.

The Prescribed Authority had issued a notice to the Petitioner u/s 10(2) showing that 22 bigha 14 biswa 19 biswansis area (5.84 hectares of irrigated land) is her surplus land. She was required to file objections. The Petitioner filed several objections out of them only three were pressed. One was in respect of plot No. 135; another was about plot No. 177 and the third one was about plot No. 446. The Prescribed Authority negatived all the objections and declared the aforesaid area as surplus land of the Petitioner. She filed an appeal u/s 13 of the said Act. The learned District Judge negatived her contentions in respect of plot Nos. 135 and 177 but gave her option with regard to plot No. 446 as desired by her. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition pressing her contention in respect of plot Nos. 135 and 177 only.

I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. So far as plot No. 135 is concerned, there is no controversy that it remains submerged with water and does not yield any crop. It yields either Singhara or fish. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that as this plot remains submerged with water throughout the year it cannot be regarded as ''land'' and cannot be taken into consideration for determining the ceiling area. The U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, does not define ''land''. It is defined in Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as follows:

"Land" (except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII) means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary which includes pisiculture and poultry farming.

Obviously plot No. 135 is not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbanddary and it cannot be regarded as land. This question came up for consideration before the Board of Revenue in the case of Ram Autar v. Lala Laxminath 1975 RD 232 in which it was held that where all the land was under water and the use of a small portion of it for growing crops like Bajra and Paddy cannot be considered use connected with agriculture or use for any such other purposes as would render the land within the meaning of the definition of that word in Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (I of 1951). This view is obviously correct because the preamble of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, states as follows:

* * * *

The preamble makes it clear that the Act has been passed to provide land foe landless agricultural labourers and for a more equitable distribution of land as also in the interest of community to ensure increased agricultural production and for other public purposes as best to subserve the common good. The object of the Act, therefore, is to carve out land from the large holdings so that the remaining holdings may be managable and capable of more intensive cultivation as also to provide land to those who could not have got it or who have very little of it. Obviously this purpose cannot be achieved unless there is land. A land which remains submerged with water and which cannot be used for any purpose contemplated by Section 3(14) of U.P. Act I of 1951 cannot be regarded as land nor it can serve the purposes contemplated by the preamble of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

The learned Standing Counsel has referred to Sections 3(2), 3(9), 3(16) and 3(17) which define ceiling area, holding, surplus land and tenure-holders respectively. His contention is that if the Petitioner is tenure-holder of plot No. 135 and it is not exempted from Section 6 of the Act it will be included in determining the ceiling area. I am reluctant to subscribe to this view because in all these proceedings the word used is ''land'' which is defined in Section 3(14) of U.P. Act I of 1951 only. As discussed above, plot No. 135 does not fall within the definition of land and it cannot be taken into consideration in determing the ceiling area. The learned District Judge committed manifest error of law by including it in that area.

Similarly about plot No. 177 the learned District Judge fell into an error by holding that its area is about 17 biswa which will be equal to about 2500 sq. yards and a small way-side hotel which is said to exist on it cannot be held to comprise the entire area and so it cannot be held to be Abadi. The error is obvious inasmuch as the Lekhpal himself admitted that this plot is Abadi. Not an iota of evidence appears to have been given that any part of it is irrigated or is capable of raising two crops. Therefore, its area also could not be taken into consideration for determining the ceiling area.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the land comprised in plot Nos. 135 and 177 will not be taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area. Costs on parties. The amount which the Petitioner may have deposited in pursuance of the stay order passed by this Court shall be refunded to him.