HORAM SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for V. K. Mehrotra, J.) :-By his order dt. 29-3-1978, a learned single Judge of this Court referred following questions of law for opinion to a larger Bench 1.When a tenure-holder dies after 8th June 1973 and before the publication of notice under Section 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act what should be the date for determining the surplus area of a tenure-holder for the purposes of determining the surplus area in view of Rule 19 of the Act ? 2.Whether Rule 19 read with its sub-clauses 2-4 are within the powers of rule making authority or they are against the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act which speak about the tenure-holder i. e. the real and living tenure-holder on the date when the notice is to be issued ? 3.Can determination of surplus area of a tenure-holder who is dead on the date of notification under Section 9 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act be made ignoring the right of the heirs of the deceased tenure-holder on that date ? 4.If the notice under Section 9 has been issued when the tenure-holder was no more in this world can notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act be issued without publishing general notice calling upon the heirs of the tenure-holder to submit the statement contemplated by law under Section 9 of the Act ? 5.If the recorded tenure-holder dies soon after the publication of general notice in the official gazette (e. g. before the expiry of 30 days), is it necessary for the Prescribed Authority to reissue notices under Section 9 (1) and (2) of the Act to tenure-holder to comply with the provisions of the Act ? Before dealing with the questions referred to us, it will, we think, be convenient to notice few salient features of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended from time to time. The Act which was passed inter alia to provide for acquisition of land for its equitable distribution and to make the surplus land available for distribution amongst landless agricultural labourers, was enforced in whole of U. P. with effect from 8th June, 1965. Section 5 of the Act lays down that on and from the commencement of the Act no tenure-holder was to be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout the State of U.P. any land in excess of Ceiling area applicable to him. The Act then went on to state the extent of ceiling area applicable to tenure-holders as also the principles for computing the same. Whereas the mechanism, for determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder and the surplus land if any held by him on the date of coming into force of the Act, was laid down in Sections 9 to 12 of the Act, that for determining the ceiling area and the surplus land which a tenure-holder happened to hold after the date of commencement of the Act was laid down in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act provided the procedure for acquisition of land declared as surplus and in Chapter IV of the Act provision was made for disposal and settlement of surplus land. Section 44 of the Act enabled the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act including those specified in subsection (2) thereof.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY the State Legislature enacted an Act entitled Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972, U. P. Act XVIII of 1973, which was enforced with effect from 8th June, 1973, whereby it made substantial changes in regard to principles that had to be adopted in computing the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holders. Section 5 as substituted by the aforesaid amendment Act provided that on and after the date on which the amendment Act came into force, no tenure holder was to be entitled to hold in aggregate, throughout U. P. any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The amendment Act also introduced a new sub- section (2) to Sec. 9 of the Act making the mechanism provided in Section 9 (1) of the Act for determination of surplus land applicable also with reference to the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act i.e 8th June, 1973. It further provided that the procedure mentioned in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act was to be followed in relation to tenure-holders who came to hold land in excess of ceiling area applicable to them after 8th of June, 1973.

(3.) THE learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State urged that in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act which lays down that on and from the commencement of the Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him. It is apparent that the Legislature intended that all tenure-holders who on 8th June, 1973, held land in excess of ceiling area applicable to them as also their land holdings were being brought within the purview of the Act. According to him, all such tenure-holders were deprived of all title and interest in the land held by them in excess of the ceiling area applicable to them (surplus land, which in due course was to be taken over by the State). As the tenure-holders were not entitled to the surplus land held by them on 8th June, 1973, the same could not, in the event of their death be inherited by their heirs. It is the land held by a tenure-holder which fell within the limits of the ceiling area applicable to him, that alone could be inherited by his heirs. In case the land inherited by a tenure-holder after 8th of June, 1973, together with the land already held by him, happened to exceed the ceiling area applicable to him, the surplus land held by him could, as provided in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act be got redetermined and thereafter acquired by the State. According to the learned Standing Counsel merely because a tenure-holder who came within the purview of the Act dies, it did not mean either that he was on 8th June, 1973 entitled to hold land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him or that he could continue to hold the same thereafter. THE legislative intentment being clear, the holding of such a tenure-holder despite his death after 8th June, 1973 continued to be within the purview of the Act.