LexAGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F • G H 253 AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS May 4, 1973 [A. N. RAY, C. ]. ANDS. N. DWIVEDI, J.j Under Pradesh Consotida1io11 of Holdings Act. 1953. Ss. 5(2), 49, 48A- U11cir l'rudesh J111po!1dtio11 of Ceiling on Ltznd Holdi11~s Act, 1960, Ss. 10, 12- 0bjections to State111ent sef\'(•d under s. 10 of Ceiling Act and dispute as lo plots to be rt:uined i11 the ceiling area-l11itiation of Coruolidation proceedi1'gs 1u1de1 tht Consolidatio11 Act-Proceedings under Ceiling Act if "in respect o/ d1..·.:laratio11 of rights or intt•rest in any land lying in the area" within the 111t'alling 1. 5 (2) and tllerefort should abate. Sf'ction 5 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act enacts, inter alia, th al upon the issuance of a notification under sub-section (2) of 13ection 4 •·every suil or proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area'' "shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or an'.hority before whom such suit or- pro:eeding is pending, stand abatt"d,'' The appellant is the tenure holder of a large area of land. Since the appellant did not file a statement of its holding as required by s. 9 of the U.P. Jmpmition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. the Prescribed Authorily under the Act served on it a statement prepared under section 10 in respect Of its holdinJ1$. The appellant filed objections to the statement indicating the plots it wanted. to retain as its ceiling area. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the appellant's choice wholly. While the proceedings were pending before the authorities under the Ceiling Act consolidation proceedings were initiated in respect of appellant's lands under the Consolidation Act. A large number of persons filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the consolidation autho~ rities. The appellants thereupon filed applications before the authorities under the Ceiling Act for stay of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. These were rejected. In a writ petition the High Court accepted the . contention of the appellant that the authorities under the Ceiling Act should have accepted entirely the choice of plots which iy wanted to retain as the ceiling area and directed the authorities -to decide the matter afresh. Jb.e High Court also directed that the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities would remain stayed during the continuance. of the proceedin~ under the Ceiling Act. On the question whether tile proceedings under the Ceiling Act are "in respect of declaration of rights or iaterest in any land lying in the area,'' within the meaning of that expression in s. 5(2), HELD : Allowing the appeal, that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were abated under s. S ( 2) of the Consolidation Act. (i) The Prescribed Authority acting under Ss. 10(2) and 12 of the Ceiling Act is an "authority" within the meaning of that expression in s. S (2). [2S6E-F] (ii) Section 5(2) will not ripply where a tenure holder voluntarily files :i statement of his holdings under section 9 ar.d there is no dispute about the right or interest in the boldin~. or when the tenure holder accepts the statements sent to him by the Pie1!cribed Authority under •. 10. But where the tenure holder does not voluntarily file a statement under s. 9 and claims that he is- not the tenure holder of ·ai1 or some of the plots included in the Jtatement prepared under s. 10 there ensues a dispute about a right or interest in land and there -is adverseary proceedings between him and the government. The prescribed arithoritv decides under s. 12 whether the tenure holder has any right or interest in all or some of the plots, artd those plots in which be has no right or interest are excluded from the statement served on him under s. 10. This is the very question in issue before the Consolidation .Authority under the Consolidation Act. If the clai11ls made to the a1>pellant's plots nending under the Consolidation Act are allowed a large area of land included in the statement under s. 10 of the Ceilinst Act witf have to be excluded from consi- deration by the prescribed Authority. Therefore, non~stay of procecdin_~ under the Ceiling Act would cause hardship to the appellant. A• '°"" as consolidalioa operations are closed the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may· be resumed. [2S6fij (iii) The pUl'lJ()Se of the non obstante clause in s. 49 is to ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.