Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, comprising K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ., delivered judgment on July 25, 1996, in an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated February 22, 1980 in Writ Petition No. 6667 of 1978. The litigation arose from proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, concerning the determination of surplus land and the exclusion of grove land from the ceiling area. The appellant, Ram Singh, claimed that certain land should be treated as grove land and thus excluded from the ceiling. The competent tribunals under the Act had recorded a finding of fact that the appellant had cut out the existing trees as on January 24, 1971 and planted new trees. On that factual premise, the legal question arose whether the trees planted by the appellant after the cut-off date could constitute grove land within the meaning of Section 23(8) of the Act. Section 23(8) defined grove land as any specific piece of land in a holding having trees, not including Guava, Papaya, banana or vine plants, planted thereon before January 24, 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove. The appellant challenged the adverse findings by filing Writ Petition No. 6667 of 1978 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on February 22, 1980, affirming that the newly planted trees did not qualify as grove land. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel, Pramod Swarup, argued that in place of fallen trees, some new trees were grown, and therefore the land should be treated as grove land. The court examined the statutory definition and held that the legislature had fixed a clear cut-off date of January 24, 1971 for existing trees, save for Guava, Papaya, Banana or vine plants. The court observed that any grove existing as on that date with fully grown trees would be grove land, except the excepted trees, for the purposes of the Act. By necessary implication, any tree planted after that date could not be grove land under the Act. While the court acknowledged that the appellant's contention was plausible, it could not be accepted because the legislature had specifically put a cut-off date of existing trees as January 24, 1971. Consequently, the court held that the High Court's view was not unwarranted. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment was reported in 1996 SCALE (5) 567.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Land Ceiling - Grove Land - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 23(8) - The appellant cut existing trees as on January 24, 1971 and planted new trees; both Tribunals recorded that finding - The Supreme Court interpreted Section 23(8) as fixing a cut-off date of January 24, 1971 for existing trees, excluding Guava, Papaya, Banana or vine plants, and by necessary implication any tree planted after that date cannot be grove land under the Act - Held that the High Court's view was warranted and dismissed the appeal with no costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether trees planted by the appellant after cutting existing trees as on January 24, 1971 constituted grove land within the meaning of Section 23(8) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that trees planted after January 24, 1971 cannot be grove land under Section 23(8) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. No costs.
Law Points
- Grove land under Section 23(8) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act requires trees planted before January 24
- 1971
- trees planted after cut-off date do not constitute grove land
- legislative cut-off date excludes post-date plantations
- finding of fact by tribunals upheld
- appeal dismissed
