M/S. GANGESHWAR LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 19-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
M/S. GANGESHWAR LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 : S.6-Exemp-
tion---Obtaining of-Land-Not only to be used for industrial purpose-There 
should also be a certificate under s.143 of the Zamindari Act subsisting on 
the appointed date-Othenvise not entitled to exe1nption. 
The appellant Sugar Mill purchased about 31 bighas of agricultural 
land on 1.6.1?71 prior to the coming into force of the amendment of 1973 
A 
B 
c 
to the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. After the 
amendment the area of the appellant Mill added with the above said land, 
constituted its holding. Before the Prescribed Authority initiated proceed- D 
ing for determining the ceiling area, the appellant made an application to 
the Assistant Collector under the Zamindari Act and obtained a certificate 
in respect of the land purchased so that it could cease to be agricultural 
land for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. 
When the Prescribed Authority proceeded to determine the ceiling 
area of the appellant, under S.11 of the Ceiling Act, the appellant produced 
the certificate obtained by it and claimed that right from the date of 
purchase the land was put to i'ndustrial use. The Prescribed Authority 
accepted the explanation and exempted the area of the land from the 
puniew of such determination. The District Judge took a contrary view 
with which the High Court agreed. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended th3.t on that date of determination, the 
appellant bad a declaration in its favour to the effect that the land was put 
to use for industrial purpose. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : The understanding of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act by the • 
High Court reflected In its two decisions,* When none has been placed 
before the Court to the contrary, would require upholding on the principle H 
799 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of stare decisis, for if the provisions is sought to be reinterpreted to the 
contrary, it would upset the settled position in the State in so far as this 
area of law is concerned. Therefore, necessity of certainty and cold 
prudence requires that the orders of the High Court are upheld, all the 
more when the author of its judgment is the same Judge who gave a well 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F • 
considered and well reasoned judgment in Jai Ram Singh's case. Years 
later, he was so sure of the soundness of the view that the said precedent 
was not even adverted to by him in the judgment under appeal. Apparently, 
by then, the view of the High Court in that regard seemed to have been 
crystalized and applied in lot many cases that under Section 6(a), in order 
to obtain exemption the land must be shown not merely to be used for 
industrial purposes, but there should also be a subsisting certificate under 
Section 143 in relation to it on the appointed date. [802-B-D] 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Har Bilas Goel and Others, (1978) All. L.J. 
1024 and Jai Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1978) All. 
L.J. 1031, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 820 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.78 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W. No. 2581 of 1977. 
Sunil Kr. Gupta, Ms. A.K. Verma and P.D. Tyagi, for JBD & Co. 
for the Appellant. 
R.C. Verma and AK. Srivastava, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant herein, is a Sugar Mill sfruated in the State of Uttar 
Pradesh. For its activity it required and came to own large tracts of land -
some of which were agricultural. Those brought the appellant within the 
grip of the due statutes i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and 
G Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on 
Land Holdings Act, 1960. On 1.6.71, i.e. prior to the coming into force of 
the amendment to the Ceiling Act, the appellant purchased a little over 31 
bighas of agricultural land. On the day when the Ceiling Act, as amended 
on 8.6.73, became applicable, the area of the appellant~ mill added with 
H the purchased area, constituted its holding~ The Prescribed Authority, 
() 
GANGESHWAR LTD. v. STATE 
801 
under the Ceiling Act was to determine the ceiling area of the appellant A 
and take out land which could be surplus. The appellant, before the 
Prescribed Authority could do anything in the matter, made an application 

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