Sri Ganesh Rai College and Another Vs. State of U.P.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4387 of 1991
Petitioner: Sri Ganesh Rai College and Another
Respondent: State of U.P.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4387 of 1991
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 01, 2000
Head Note:
LAND CEILING
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (1 of 1961)
a) Section 5(1), (2) – Sale of vast land through 175 sale deeds between 1963 to 1972 – Out of that about 135 sale deeds between 24.1.71 to September 1972 – Ceiling area, if to be determined with reference to date when prescribed authority determines the area. Held that ceiling area is to be determined with reference to the date of commencement of the Act.
Held:
Sub-section (6) of Section 5 provides that in determining the ceiling area applicable to tenure holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. The said Sub-section has a proviso which provides that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to (a) a transfer in favour of any person including Government referred to Sub-section (2) and (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authori-ty to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a ‘Benami’ transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. This argument overlooks Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him on the commencement of the Act. By virtue of Section 5(1) of the Act, the ceiling area of a tenure holder is required to be determined with reference to date of commencement of the Act and not on the date when the Prescribed Authority determines the ceiling area of a tenure-holder. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant-College herein is an institution imparting education and was upgraded as Post-graduate College in the year 1979. Under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act), the appellant was served with a notice under Section 10 of the Act. The appellant filed an objection before the Prescribed Authority which was rejected. The Prescribed Authority found that the appellant possessed 102.22 acres of irrigated land. The appellant-College thereafter preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge was of the view that since the appellant is a Post-gradu-ate College, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act imposing the ceiling area does not apply to it. Conse-quently the appeal was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, State of U.P. preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Consti-tution before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that since the appellant-College was upgraded as Post-graduate Col-lege in the year 1979, the benefit of Section 5(2)(c) of the Act is not available. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the State was allowed and the order passed by the District Judge was set aside. It is against the said judgment, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that assum-ing the transfers made by the appellant during the years 1971 and 1972 are void by the time when the Prescribed Authority determined the ceiling area of the land the appellant-College was a Post-graduate College and, therefore, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 are not applicable to the appellants. Learned Counsel in support of his argument referred to Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. In the present case, what we find is that the appellant executed as many as 175 sale deeds between 1963 and 1972. Out of 135 sale deeds, 62 sale deeds were executed between 24.1.1971 and September 1972 and the total area conveyed through the sale deeds executed after 24.1.1971 was 91.57 acres only for a sum of Rs. 36,761/- which works out to Rs. 400/- per acre on an average. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 provides that in determining the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. The said Sub-section has a proviso which provides that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to (a) a transfer in favour of any person including Government referred to Sub-section (2) and (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a ‘Benami’ transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. This argument overlooks Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him on the commencement of the Act. By virtue of Section 5(1) of the Act, the ceiling area of a tenure-holder is required to be determined with reference to date of commencement of the Act and not on the date when the Prescribed Authority determines the ceiling area of a tenure-holder. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.
3. Learned Counsel then urged that the sale deeds executed by the appellant were bona fide and, therefore, Sub-section (6) of Section 5 is not applicable and land transferred by the appell-ant between 1971 and 1972 has to be excluded while determining the ceiling area of the appellant. This argument has no sub-stance. The sale deeds executed by the appellant are not on record. There is nothing on record to show the pressing need for sale of land by the appellant. The High Court also found that the considerations for which the land was sold were not adequate. We, therefore, find that the land transferred by the appellants were not in good faith. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The appellant-College herein is an institution imparting education and was upgraded as Post-graduate College in the year 1979. Under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act), the appellant was served with a notice under Section 10 of the Act. The appellant filed an objection before the Prescribed Authority which was rejected. The Prescribed Authority found that the appellant possessed 102.22 acres of irrigated land. The appellant-College thereafter preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge was of the view that since the appellant is a Post-gradu-ate College, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act imposing the ceiling area does not apply to it. Conse-quently the appeal was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, State of U.P. preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Consti-tution before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that since the appellant-College was upgraded as Post-graduate Col-lege in the year 1979, the benefit of Section 5(2)(c) of the Act is not available. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the State was allowed and the order passed by the District Judge was set aside. It is against the said judgment, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that assum-ing the transfers made by the appellant during the years 1971 and 1972 are void by the time when the Prescribed Authority determined the ceiling area of the land the appellant-College was a Post-graduate College and, therefore, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 are not applicable to the appellants. Learned Counsel in support of his argument referred to Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. In the present case, what we find is that the appellant executed as many as 175 sale deeds between 1963 and 1972. Out of 135 sale deeds, 62 sale deeds were executed between 24.1.1971 and September 1972 and the total area conveyed through the sale deeds executed after 24.1.1971 was 91.57 acres only for a sum of Rs. 36,761/- which works out to Rs. 400/- per acre on an average. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 provides that in determining the ceiling area applicable to tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. The said Sub-section has a proviso which provides that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to (a) a transfer in favour of any person including Government referred to Sub-section (2) and (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a ‘Benami’ transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. This argument overlooks Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him on the commencement of the Act. By virtue of Section 5(1) of the Act, the ceiling area of a tenure-holder is required to be determined with reference to date of commencement of the Act and not on the date when the Prescribed Authority determines the ceiling area of a tenure-holder. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.
3. Learned Counsel then urged that the sale deeds executed by the appellant were bona fide and, therefore, Sub-section (6) of Section 5 is not applicable and land transferred by the appell-ant between 1971 and 1972 has to be excluded while determining the ceiling area of the appellant. This argument has no sub-stance. The sale deeds executed by the appellant are not on record. There is nothing on record to show the pressing need for sale of land by the appellant. The High Court also found that the considerations for which the land was sold were not adequate. We, therefore, find that the land transferred by the appellants were not in good faith. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
