HARDEV SINGH versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 197 · Decided: 10-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 197
197
HARDEV SINGH
v.
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2010)
JANUARY 10, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960: Object of legislation – Held: The object of the 1960 Act is to
prescribe a ceiling limit on the area of land held by a ‘tenure holder’
for the purpose of securing the interest of the community at large to
ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for
landless agricultural labourers with a view to have equitable
distribution of land–Land laws.
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960: ss.3(9) and 3(17)–Prescribed Authority declared certain land
of government lessee-respondent no.2 as surplus – Land declared
surplus included the land sublet to the appellant (sub-lessee) by
government lessee – Aggrieved appellant unsuccessfully
approached the authorities – Writ petition also was dismissed by
High Court – On appeal, held: The lease in favour of Respondent
No. 2 was made under the Government Grants Act, 1895 –
Respondent No. 2 was put in possession of the land under the terms
and conditions of the Government grant which did not permit any
transfer of land by him without fulfilling the conditions prescribed
in Clause 9 – The conditions of grant though allowed sub-lease for
agricultural purpose but sub-lessees cannot claim independent
tenancy rights contrary to terms of grant – Thus, the appellant being
a sub-lessee continues to be an ostensible holder of land and the
government grantee, respondent No. 2, to be the real holder – The
ceiling authorities as well as the High Court rightly dismissed the
claim of the appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The very purpose behind enactment of the
Ceiling Act is to prescribe a ceiling limit on the area of land held
by a ‘tenure holder’ for the purpose of securing the interest of
the community at large to ensure increased agricultural
production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers
with a view to have equitable distribution of land. [Para 18]
[203-G-H]
The terms of the grant go to show that 4805 acres of land
situated in Pargana Bazpur, District Nainital were leased out to
the Government Lessee. Condition No. 9 of the Grant lays down
the conditions to be fulfillled in the event of lessee transferring
the lease land or a portion thereto except transfer by way of an
inheritance. Conditions laid down by Clause 9 of the grant was
made inapplicable in case of sub-leases made by the lessee while
sub-letting the land in the ordinary course of agriculture. A perusal
of Condition no. 1 of the Grant made it clear that the grantee was
only allowed to transfer the land on fulfillment of conditions
enumerated in the said clause. Furthermore, even the terms of
the sub-lease specifically provided that if the sub-lessee intended
to purchase the full rights of the Government Lessee thereby
himself acquiring the status of an independent tenure holder, he
could do so in confirmity with Clause 9 of the Government lease
within a period of five years from the date of sub- lease on the
payment of rent so fixed. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 24][208-H; 209-A-B,
E-G]
Conjoint reading of Clause 5 of the sub-lease and Clause 9
of the Government lease clearly stipulated that acquisition of
rights, if any, as independent tenure holder could only be by
following the stipulations as contained in Clause 5 of the sub-
lease and Clause 9 of the Government lease, which, in the instant
case, admittedly, was not followed. An analysis of the terms and
conditions of grant makes it clear that any transfer of land by the
Government Lessee was subject to fulfilment of the conditions
of the government lease and sub-lease and non-compliance of
the conditions and transfer made without fulfilling the conditions
would be void. Though, the conditions of grant allowed sub-lease
of the land in the ordinary course of agriculture but contrary to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
199
the terms of grant, the sub-lessee can claim no independent
tenancy right so as to frustrate the terms and tenure of the grant,
as the sub-lease executed for ordinary course of agriculture cannot
be treated as transfer for want of compliance of the conditions
enumerated in the Clause itself.  Thus, the appellants in their
capacity as sub-lessee shall not acquire the status of an
independent tenure holder.

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