GURBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected writ petitions arise out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1976 challenges the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority dated 5-3-1975 and 27-5-1976 respectively. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4050 of 1976 challenges the orders of those authorities dated 11-2-1975 and 22-12-1975 respectively. In Petition No. 3574 of 1976, Smt. Gurbir Kaur is the Petitioner while in Petition No. 4050 of 1976 the State of Uttar Pradesh is the Petitioner. Facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows.

(2.) In Petition No. 3574 of 1976, the Petitioner, in response to a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act filed an objection claiming additional hectares of land for each of the two adult sons of a pre-deceased wife of her late husband. According to the Petitioner, the step-sons, for the purposes of the grant of additional hectares of land under Section 5(3) of the Act were included in the expression "sons" as occurring in that section. Both the authorities below rejected her claim holding that the expression "son" as occurring in Section 5(3) of the Act did not include the son of a predeceased wife of the tenure-holder's husband. In Petition No. 4050 of 1976, the State included the land held by one Sunit Kumar, a minor son of a pre-deceased wife of the late husband of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (Respondent No. 1), in her holding for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to her. Smt. Shakuntala Devi contended that the step son was not a member of her family within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 3(7) of the Act for the purposes of clubbing the land held by the minor son with the holding held by her. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Authority accepted that contention and held that Sunit Kumar was not a member of the family of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (Respondent No. 1) for the purposes of clubbing of his land with the holding of the step-mother (Respondent No. 1). The minor was treated as a tenure-holder constituting an independent family and entitled to 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. The Prescribed Authority found that the original tenure-holder of the land in question was one Mahendra Pratap Singh. He had two wives Smt. Dulari, the mother of Sunit Kumar, and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the mother of one Vinit Kumar. According to the Prescribed Authority, two families came into existence after the death of Mahendra Pratap Singh, and both of them were entitled to inherit the holding left behind by him. Both the families were found to be entitled to 7.30 hectares of irrigated land as the ceiling area applicable to them. The Prescribed Authority held that on determining the said area of the two families no land was surplus with Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The notice under Section 10(2) was accordingly, discharged. Aggrieved the State went up in appeal and the only question canvassed before the appellate Authority was that Sunit Kumar the step-son of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (Respondent No. 1) had to be treated as her son; and a member of her family within the meaning of Section 3(7) of the Act for the purposes of inclusion of his land in the holding of Respondent No. 1. The allotment of 7.30 hectares of land separately to Sunit Kumar under Section 5(3) of the Act was challenged as erroneous and it was contended that the Respondents were possessed of land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to them which could be declared as surplus. The learned District Judge rejected this contention and affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority holding that Sunit Kumar, the son of the predeceased wife of the late husband of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, could not be held to be her son for the purposes of clubbing his land with the holding of Respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, the State has filed Writ Petition No. 4050 of 1976.

(3.) The main questions arising for consideration in these petitions thus are : (i) whether an adult step-son of a female tenure-holder can be held to be her son for the purposes of the allowance of additional hectares of land under Section 5(3) of the Act; and (ii) whether a minor step-son of a female tenure-holder born of a predeceased wife of the husband of the female tenure-holder, can be held to be her son for the purposes of clubbing the land held by the minor with the holding of the female tenure-holder under Section 5(3) of the Act. Both these questions concern the true scope and construction of that section which reads as follows: (Section quoted--Ed.)