BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Public Ltd. , Company and carries on the business of manufacture of sugar. The petitioner-company owns extensive sugarcane farms. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sehore, who is the competent authority under the madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No 20 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), served a notice on the petitioner-company calling upon it to submit a return in terms of Section 9 of the Act. In reply to the said notice, the Company submitted that it held only "exempted land" and that under the scheme of the Act the company was not required to submit a return This contention was accepted by the competent authority and the proceedings were dropped. The Commissioner, Bhopal Division, however, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, called upon the company to show cause why the order of the competent authority should not be revised and that authority be directed to proceed with the enquiry contemplated under Section 10 of the Act. After hearing the company, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that every holder of land was bound to submit a return irrespective of the kind of land he held. The commissioner, therefore, directed the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry. In appeal, the Board of Revenue also took the same view. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-company seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Commissioner, dated 30th, September 1964, and that of the Board of Revenue, dated 6th August 1965.

(2.) TO appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, acquisition and disposal of surplus land and matters ancillary thereto Section 2 defines certain expressions used in the Act. The relevant definitions are:

(3.) IT was argued by Shri Chitale, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the scheme of the Act was to exempt altogether from the provisions of the Act lands enumerated in Section 3. Under Section 9 of the Act it was only a person who held a land, other than the exempted land under Section 3, in excess of twenty-five acres was required to file return of the land he held. If, therefore, a person holds only "exempted land", or land less than twenty-five acres excluding the exempted land, then he is under no obligation to file a return under Section 9. It was said that under Section 10 a person can be called upon to furnish a return only if he is one required to file a return under Section 9, and if he fails to do so. If, therefore. Section 9 does not apply to a person, then Section 10 cannot be invoked against him.