Vs.
EmailAppeal:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Apeal:
Judges:
Date of Judgment: Feb 18, 2000
Head Note:
Land Ceiling/Reforms Law
H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973
Rule 3, proviso (As inserted vide notification dated 4.4.86) and Circular by Regis-trar, Kangra District dated 21.8.90 with H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 5 – Proviso and circular imposing ban on transfer of land exempted under Section 5 – Validity. Held that such ban is ultra vires of Section 5. Such land even cannot be taken into account for calculating surplus land.
H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973
Rule 3, proviso (As inserted vide notification dated 4.4.86) and Circular by Regis-trar, Kangra District dated 21.8.90 with H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 5 – Proviso and circular imposing ban on transfer of land exempted under Section 5 – Validity. Held that such ban is ultra vires of Section 5. Such land even cannot be taken into account for calculating surplus land.
Held:
Tea estates are excluded from the provisions of the Act by Section 5. By placing complete prohibi-tion on transfer of land subservient to tea estates no purpose sought to be achieved by the Act is advanced and so also such prohibition cannot be sustained. Land forming part of tea estate including land subservient to tea plantation have been placed beyond the ken of the Act. Such land is not to be taken in ac-count either for calculating area of surplus land or for calcu-lating area of land which a person may retain as falling within ceiling limit.
(Paras 8, 13)
(Paras 8, 13)
JUDGEMENT:
