GANGA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relief sought is that a writ of Mandamus may be issued commanding the consolidation authorities not to proceed with any case under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) as in respect of the land in dispute the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short the Urban Ceiling Act) are also applicable.

(2.) SHORN of details the facts are these. Villages Ahaldpur, Nawadia Kurmian, Roopapur and Badhapura, Pargana, Tahsil and District Bareilly, were brought under consolidation operations in view of notification issued under section 4 of the Act. The proceedings under sections 9 and 9-A of the Act are pending. C. H. Form No. 5 was issued to the tenure-holders. It appears that the land of these villages came within the definition of " urban agglomeration " as defined under section 2 (n), and ' urban land ' as defined under section 2 (o) of the Urban Ceiling Act. The land in these villages was having pronounced urban characteristic and these villages were shown as constituents of the agglomeration. The proceedings under section 6 (six) etc. of the Urban Ceiling Act are in progress and draft statements appears to have been prepared in respect of the persons who have not filed statement under section 6 of the Urban Ceiling Act. No details, however, have been given about the progress of the proceedings under sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Urban Ceiling Act and as to whether any appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal has been preferred under section 12 or not.

(3.) ONE of the important rules of construction of statutes is to act according to Maxim Animus Imponentis (i. e. to ascertain the intention of law givers or the legislature). If there appears to be any gap which requires to be filled up, (i. e. Casus Omissi) but for that also the Court should not endeavour, rather it should be left for legislature to rectify the mistake. In order to avoid any mistake or in other words, in case of Casus Omissi it is not for courts to fill up the gap. It is useful to extract a few sentence from R.W.M. Dias on Jurisprudence (4th Edition) page 224 as follows :-