KALLU ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 24-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KALLU ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1989 
[S. NATARAJAN, K.N. SAIKIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) 
B 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section 
4A-'Jrrigated land'-Determination of-Whether two crops should 
be grown on entire extent of land holding. 
The appellants had filed separate writ petitions in the High Court 
challenging the basis for determination of 'irrigated land' under section 
4A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 1n 
view of conflicting interpretations given earlier by Single Judges of that 
High Court, a reference was made to the Division Bench in the case of 
the petitioner/appellant Kalin. Following the ratio laid down by the 
Division Bench in Kallu v. State of U.P., [1979) A.L.J. 1113 the writ 
petitions were dismissed. 
Before this Court, the appellants disputed the correctness of the 
view taken by the Division Bench, and contended that in order to clas-
sify a land as irrigated land, there should be evidence of 'assured irriga-
tion' and, secondly, that the two crops in a Fasli year should have been 
raised on the entire extent of the land and not in a portion of land alone. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: (1) The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings Act, 1960 is a piece of social legislation for achieving the 
F 
several objectives set out in the preamble. In order to give greater 
thrust to the objects underlying the Act, the Legislature has changed 
the basis for reckoning the ceiling area from that of 'fair quality land' to 
that of 'assured irrigation facilities' available to a land. !S74C-D I 
(2) On a reading of section 4A, it may be seen that the Legislature 
G 
has· prescribed different kinds of tests on the basis of which the 
authorities have to determine whether a land is irrigated or not for the 
purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder. The two 
broad tests are (1) availability of irrigation facilities and (2) the factum 
of raising or the capability of the soil raiSing at least two crops in an 
agricultural year. l573F-G] 
H 
567 
A 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
(3) There is no merit in the contention that in addition to the 
materials and records set out in the section there must be independent 
evidence of assured irrigation facility before ever a Prescribed Autho-
rity can form an opinion about a land having assured irrigation facility. [574F] 
( 4) Sub-clause (b) of section 4-A cannot be read so as to mean that 
B 
two crops should have been grown on the entire extent of a land having 
c 
D 
irrigation facility for classifying the land as 'irrigated land' as it would 
, 
have the effect of limiting the operation of the sub-clause contrary to the 
legislative intent. [57SA] 
(S) The classification has to be made with reference to the poten-
tiality of the land to yield two crops in one Fasli year and not on the 
basis of the actual raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land. [574H] 
(6) The raising of two crops even on a portion of the land will 
prove in the absence of material to show poor quality of soil in portions 
of the land due to salinity etc. the uniform nature and content of the soil 
of the entire land. [57SD] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3241 
of 1979 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24. 7 .1979 of the Allahabad 
E 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11370 of 1975. 
F 
M.V. Goswami and Dr. B.S. Chauhan for the Appellant. 
Prithvi Raj, R.S. Rana and Ashok K. Srivastava for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NATARAJAN, J. In these appeals by special leave, the appel-
lants assail the interpretation given to certain provisions of Section 4A 
of the U .P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as 
G 
amended by U .P. Acts 18 of 1973 and 20 of 1976 (hereinafter referred 
to as the Act) by the Allahabad Higb Court. Conflicting interpreta-
-
tions had been given by single judges on the relevant provisions and 
hence a reference was made in Kallu v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1979] 
A.L. ]. 1113 to which connected writ petitions were tagged on to a 
Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on two questions 
H 
viz. 
'I 
KALLU v. STATE OF U.P. [NATARAJAN, J.] 
569 
"1. What is the true scope and effect of sub-clause (b) of 
clause 'firstly' of Section 4-A? 
2. In particular, whether the said sub-clause would take in 
the entire plot only if two cr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.