ARVIND KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 08-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 712 
ARVIND KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.7165 of2016) 
AUGUST 08, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R.F. NARIMAN, J.J.] 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) 
Act, 1976 - s.31(2) - Abatement of ceiling proceedings - Notice 
uls. 10(2) of the 1960 Act (the Principal Act) served on tenure-
holder for proposing to declare the land in question as surplus 
land - Objections filed by appellants (legal heirs of tenure-holder) 
- Mean11'hile, Prescribed Authority under the Act passed order dated 
13.1.1975 declaring the entire land ll'hich was the subject matter 
of notice, as surplus - Appeal against tliis order dismissed on 
13.12.87 - Writ petition by appellants also dismissed - Plea of 
appellants tliat on a correct construction of s.31, 1976 Amendment 
Act the entire proceedings had abated and hence, the appellate 
authority had no jurisdiction to pass order dated I 3.12. 87 - Held: 
There are two pre-requisites for application of s. 31 ( 2) which provides 
for abatement of appeal against order determining surplus land-
First, there should be an order determining the surplus land under 
the Principal Act before 17.1.1975, second, 11'ilh regard to such 
surplus land the prescribr!d authority was required to re-determine 
surplus land u/s. 9, 1974 Amendment Act - Clearly, the order 
determining the surplus land in the present case was made four 
days before 17.1.1975, tints the first pre-requisite was met - Second 
pre-requisite was also 111e1t as the prescribed authority was required 
to re-determine surplus land uls. 9, 1974 Amendment Act but that 
was never done as tl1ere was no order re-determining surplus land 
- Language of s.31 (2) also makes it clear that e1•ery appeal preferred 
against such orders and pending immediately before 10.10.1975 
shall be deemed to have abated on the said date and thus the appeal 
in the present case having been filed prior to 10.10.1975, stood 
abated on the said date - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Act, 1960 -
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
(Amendment) Act, 1972 - s.19 - U:P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 - s.9 . 
712 
ARVJND KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling 011 Land Holdings (A111end111ent) 
Act, 1974 - s.9 - Requirement to redetermine surplus land - No 
discretion vested in prescribed authority - Held: Such requirement 
is not discretionary as the ve1'.V expression "may at any time within 
a period of two years ... "·occurring in s.9. 1974 Amendment Act 
also occurs in s.31(3), 1976 Amendment Act and thus on a correct 
reading of the .5ub.-section, the presaibed authority, in every case, 
is required to re-determine surplus land if an order determining 
surplus land was made prior to.10.10.1975 . 
. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The original statutory scheme of the U.P. 
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (the Principal 
Act) which spoke of surplus "fair quality land" was substituted in 
its entirety by a completely new and different scheme by the 
Amendment Act of 1972 read with the Amendment Act of 1974. 
Both of these Acts, with certain minor exceptions, came into force 
on the same date, namely, 8.6.1973. l<'or Section 9 of the 1974 
Amendment Act to apply, an order has to be made determining 
surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder before the 
commencment of the Amendment Act. By Section 1(2), "this 
Section" and Section 9 both came into force at once i.e. on 
17.1.1975. The ex1H·ession "this Section" refers to Sectioill(l) 
which in tum refers to the Act as the U.P Imposition of Ceiling 
on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974. This being the case, 
it is clear that the Act commenced only on 17.1.1975, even though 
a number of Sections shall be deemed to have come into force 
retrospectively i.e. on 8.6.1973. The order passed by the 
Prescribed Authority being on 13.1.1975, the first condition of 
Section 9 is met, namely, that this order was passed before 
17.1.1975. [Para 12][732-P, G-11; 733-A-C] 
1.2 The very expression "may at any time within a period 
of two years ... " occurring in Section 9, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling 
on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 also occurs in Section 
31(3) of the 1976, Amendment Act. This sub-section makes it 
clear that the expression "may" goes along with the words "at 
any time within a period of two years ... " as it is clear that on a 
correct reading 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.