LexESCORTS FARMS LTD., PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. ESCORTS FARMS (RAM GARH) LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER, KUMAON DIVISION, NAINITAL, U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ESCORTS FARMS LTD., PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. ESCORTS A FARMS (RAM GARH) LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER, KUMAON DIVISION, NAINITAL, U.P. AND ORS. FEBRUARY 20, 2004 B [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; Section 5 with Explanations I & If and Sections 38-A and 38-B with UP. Amendment Act; C Act No.18 of 1973 and Act No.20 of 1976/Government Grants Act, 1895 with UP. Amendment Act, 1960/UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Section 131: Acquisition of lands of erstwhile Ruler and release of the same thereafter by the State in favour of a Company and the Ruler on certain terms and D conditions-The Company joined other companies constituting Farms- Initiation of Ceiling proceedings by the authority-Declaring certain area of land belonging to the Farm as surplus-On appeal, the District Court remanded the case to the authority-Authority redetermined surplus land excluding the area of the land, meant for school, treating it as separate entity-Affirmed by the appellate authority modifying the area of surplus land-Company sold E certain area of the land allegedly after the amendment in the Act reducing Ceiling limit-Transferees claiming status of 'Sirdar '/'Bhumidar '-Authority redetermined surplus area of land, however, the area of the land for school left undisturbed as barred by res-judicata-Reversed by the appellate authority holding that principle of res-judicata could not be applied under the Ceiling p Act-Challenge to-Held: Farm possessing land for and on behalf of the holder company and the Ruler, hence an ostensible holder-Farm/transferees could take part in the proceedings---Since the Proceeding before the authority/ appellate authority not objected to by the company, it could be treated to be proceedings against the Company and the Ruler-Hence, the proceeding valid and not infructuous-Since transfer of land not permissible under the terms G of Government Grants, transferee/Firm not entitled to claim status of Sirdar and Bhumidars-Code of Civil Procedurf!, 1908-Section fl; Society Registration Act, 1860; UP. Tenancy Act---Section 2(1); U.P. General Clauses Act---Ss. 3(17) and 9(33). 543 H 5·l4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R. A Government Grants vis-a-vis tenancy rights--Held: Since the Government Grant has an overriding effect under the Government Grants Act, recognition of tenancy rights/Sirdars/Bhumidars rights of transferees under the U.P. Tenancy Act is of no consequence. Amendment in the Act-Raising of ceiling limit-Transferees-Effect on-- B Held: Transfer of the land subsequent to amendment could be excluded from the ceiling limit only if authority satisfied that such transfers were made in good faith and for adequate consideration-The company and the Ruler lacking good faith having executed the sale deed after the cut off datelamendment- The concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the High Court were C finding of facts not vitiated for consideration of any irrelevant circumstances- Hence, not liable to be interfered with in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India-Constitution of India-Article 136. Explanation (ii) to sub-section 6 of Section 5-Denial of opportunity of hearing to transferees-Held: Transferees are the parties claiming benefits D under the provisions of law-They would be adversely affected if transfer found to be lacking good faith-Hence transferees are the necessary parties- However, denying t~em opportunity of hearing not proved fatal to them- Hence, it is not appropriate to set aside the order of the appellate authority. Section 18-A-Quantification of damages-Jurisdiction of High Court- E lntervenors/subsequent transferees-Rights of-Discussed Code of Civil procedure, 1908; Section 11: Principle of Res-judicata-Applicability of-Held: Exemption of land for school from the extent of holder compa1:.1y was not a decision on the issue F but it was a clear/apparent mistake-Transfer of lands for school have been made with full knowledge of the impending legislation proposing reduction in the ceiling limit with intention to evade the effect of ceiling law-As per provisions under Section 38-B introduced by Amended Act, bar of res-judicata made inapplicable in the ceiling proceedings-Jn the facts and circumstances G of the case, the bar of res-judicata not available-Constitution of India, 1951- Article 39(b) and (c). Words and Phrases:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.