Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against Ceiling Surplus Land Determination Under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; Government Grant Treated as Lease. The Court Held That a Government Grant with Lease Covenants Constitutes a Lease Under Section 3(d) and Applies the Proviso to Section 3(3) of Government Grants Act, 1895, Retrospectively.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court heard three civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated July 4, 1979, which had confirmed orders under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The appellant, since deceased, had been granted parcels of land by the State Government on July 11, 1956 under the Government Grants Act, 1895, for settling colonies and improved cultivation, subject to conditions. The prescribed authority issued notice under Section 10(2) on October 20, 1974 requiring return for ceiling determination. The appellant's objections, raised on December 4, 1975, were rejected by the prescribed authority on February 28, 1975, holding 94 Bighas 16 Biswas of surplus land. The appeal to the Civil Judge was dismissed on June 2, 1976, and the High Court confirmed the orders. The main contentions before the Supreme Court were that lands under the Government Grants Act were excluded from the ceiling Act; that the notice after deletion of Section 6(h) was a nullity requiring fresh notice under Section 9; and that Section 133-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 applied. The Court rejected all contentions. It held that the grant, despite nomenclature, was a lease due to covenants such as payment of annual lease amount, personal cultivation, prohibition on sublease and transfer, surrender, and termination, thus falling within Section 3(d) as a Government lessee. Additionally, the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Government Grants Act, 1895, inserted retrospectively, applied ceiling enactments to such grants. On notice, Section 6(h) deletion was effective from 1973, and the notice issued in October 1974 was after the amendment; the authority had jurisdiction, and compliance was one of substance over form. No fresh notice was required. Malkhan Singh was distinguished. Section 133-A was inapplicable because the lease was under the Government Grants Act. The appeals were dismissed without costs.

Headnote

A) Land Reforms - Ceiling on Land Holdings - Government Grant as Lease - Section 3(d) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; Section 105 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The appellant received land under the Government Grants Act, 1895 with covenants for annual lease amount, personal cultivation, prohibition on sublease, transfer, surrender, and termination. The Court held that although called a grant, the covenants made it in substance a lease, thus the appellant was a holder within Section 3(d). Cases Byramjee Jeejeebhoy and Zahoor Ahmad distinguished. Held: Authorities had jurisdiction to determine ceiling area.

B) Land Reforms - Applicability of Ceiling Act to Government Grants - Proviso to Section 3(3) Government Grants Act, 1895 - Retrospective Application - The proviso inserted with retrospective effect prevented any claim of exemption from enactments relating to land reforms or ceiling on agricultural lands including U.P. Act 13 of 1960. Therefore even as a grant under Government Grants Act, the ceiling act applied. Held: The grantee cannot claim outside the Act.

C) Land Reforms - Ceiling Proceedings - Notice under Section 10(2) Validity after Deletion of Exemption - Section 6(h), Section 9, Section 10(2) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 6(h) deleted by Amendment Act effective 1973, notice issued October 20, 1974 after amendment became effective; compliance substance over form; no fresh notice needed because authority had jurisdiction by the time of determination. Malkhan Singh distinguished. Held: No nullity.

D) Land Reforms - Government Lease under U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act - Section 133-A Applicability - Lease granted under Government Grants Act, hence Section 133-A has no application. Held: Appeals dismissed.

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether lands granted under the Government Grants Act, 1895 were excluded from the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; whether the notice under Section 10(2) was a nullity due to deletion of Section 6(h); whether Section 133-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 made the lease a Government lease outside the ceiling Act

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeals dismissed; orders of authorities and High Court confirmed; no costs.

Law Points

  • A grant under the Government Grants Act
  • 1895 with covenants of lease is in substance a lease and falls within Section 3(d) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
  • 1960
  • the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Government Grants Act
  • 1895 retrospectively applies ceiling enactments to such grants
  • deletion of Section 6(h) exemption effective from 1973 validated notice under Section 10(2) issued in October 1974
  • no fresh notice under Section 9 required where authority had jurisdiction at time of determination
  • Section 133-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act
  • 1950 does not apply to a Government grant under the Government Grants Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1995 LawText (SC) (05) 17

Civil Appeal Nos. 3012-14/79

1995-05-02

K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria

1995 SCC Supl. (3) 20, 1995 SCALE (3)688

S. N. Singh, R. B. Misra

Raghubar Dayal (Dead)

State of U.P. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeals against High Court order confirming determination of surplus land under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to quash notice under Section 10(2) and orders declaring surplus land, claiming exclusion of Government grant lands from ceiling Act.

Filing Reason

Government granted land under Government Grants Act, 1895; prescribed authority issued notice under Section 10(2) to submit return for ceiling determination; appellant objected; prescribed authority determined 94 Bighas 16 Biswas surplus land.

Previous Decisions

Prescribed Authority rejected objections and held surplus land on February 28, 1975; Civil Judge appellate authority dismissed appeal on June 2, 1976; High Court dismissed writ petitions on July 4, 1979.

Issues

Whether lands granted under Government Grants Act are excluded from operation of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Whether notice under Section 10(2) issued after deletion of Section 6(h) exemption was a nullity requiring fresh notice under Section 9. Whether Section 133-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 applied to the Government grant.

Submissions/Arguments

Lands covered under Government Grants Act stood excluded from ceiling Act by operation of Sections 2 and 3 of Government Grants Act, 1895. Notice issued in October 1974 was without jurisdiction and a nullity because Section 6(h) was deleted by Amendment Act effective 1973; fresh notice under Section 9 was required. Section 133-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 treated the lease as Government lease, and the Act was extended to Nainital after July 1, 1969, making notice illegal.

Ratio Decidendi

A Government grant containing covenants of lease such as payment of annual lease amount, personal cultivation, prohibition on sublease and transfer, surrender, and termination is in substance a lease under Section 3(d) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The proviso to Section 3(3) of Government Grants Act, 1895, inserted retrospectively, applies ceiling enactments to such grants. Deletion of Section 6(h) exemption effective from 1973 validated notice under Section 10(2) issued in October 1974; compliance is of substance over form and no fresh notice under Section 9 is required where the authority had jurisdiction at the time of determination. Section 133-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not apply to a lease granted under the Government Grants Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The preamble to the grant clearly mentioned that the land was granted for cultivation to make the improved methods of cultivation within the meaning of s.3(8) of the U.P. Tenancy Act XVII of 1939. The grant is in substance, therefore, is a lease of the agricultural land for personal cultivation on improved methods of cultivation during the period of the substance of the lease for consideration, terminable on notice by either side. The proviso to sub-section (3) of s.3 reads thus: 'Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent, or deemed ever to have prevented the effect of any enactment relating to the acquisition of property, land reforms or the imposition of ceiling on agricultural lands i.e. U.P. Act 13 of 1960.' The appeals are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs.

Procedural History

Government granted land on July 11, 1956 under Government Grants Act, 1895. Notice under Section 10(2) issued October 20, 1974 by prescribed authority. Appellant filed objections on December 4, 1975, rejected by prescribed authority on February 28, 1975, holding 94 Bighas 16 Biswas surplus. Appeal to Civil Judge dismissed June 2, 1976. High Court dismissed writ petitions on July 4, 1979. Supreme Court dismissed appeals on May 2, 1995.

Acts & Sections

  • Government Grants Act, 1895: Section 2, Section 3, Section 3(3) proviso
  • U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section 3(d), Section 6(h), Section 9, Section 10(2)
  • U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 133-A
  • U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939: Section 3(8)
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 105
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenants in Maharashtra Rent Control Act Case for Non-Payment of Rent and Subletting. Concurrent findings of fact on default and unauthorized subletting under Sections 15, 16, 17 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Attempt to Murder Case — No Prima Facie Case of Intention to Kill Established. Court finds that injuries caused by sticks and kicks do not attract Section 307 IPC as there was no intention to...