NAWAB SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, RAMPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 18-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NA WAB SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
B 
v. 
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, RAMPUR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2003 
[SHIVARAJV. PATILANDD.M. DHARMADHIKARI,JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960-
Sections 3,5,6 and 6(xiv)-Land held by ex-Ruler-Exemption from imposition 
C of ceiling by virtue of Section 6(xiv)-Act amended from time to time-Repeal 
of Section 6(xiv) by the Amendment Act-Omission of exemption of private 
properties of ex-Ruler in categories of exemption under Section 6-Effect of-
Held: Lands were ruler's private properties and he was not a tenure holder-
Mere omission of exemption by private properties of ex-Ruler in categories 
of exemption after amendment cannot take effect and operation of Section 5 
D dealing with imposition of ceiling-Thus, having regard to Sections 3, 5 and 
6, Section 5 not applicable to land held by ex-Ruler-Order of High Court 
holding provisions of the Act applicable to the lands held by the ex-Ruler 
set aside and matter remitted to High Courl for fresh consideration-Uttar 
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972. 
E 
Appellants' father-ex-Ruler of Rampur State entered into merger 
agreement with Dominion oflndia. He was entitled to full ownership, use and 
enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) 
belonging to him on the date of agreement. A letter containing list of movable 
and immovable properties, which would be private properties of the Ruler was 
F given. It included agricultural lands covering an area of 1073 acres which 
was transferred by the State to the ruler for farming purposes free of rent. 
Thereafter, notifications were issued under the Zamindari Abolition Act and 
all the estates were vested in the State except private lands belonging to the 
ex-Ruler Rampur. In 1960, Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings Act was passed. By virtue of Section 6(xiv) lands held by the erstwhile 
G Ruler of merged State were exempted from imposition of ceiling. The said 
section was repealed by the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972. Prescribed authority issued notice to the 
appellants' father that exemption clause under Section 6(xiv) of the Act having 
been repealed the ceiling Act has become applicable to the lands held by him. 
H He filed objections which were rejected. Subsequent appeal was also dismis~ed. 
666 
NAWAB SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 
667 
Thereafter, writpetition was filed. During pendency, appellant's father died A 
and the appellants were brought on record as legal representatives. High Court 
also dismissed the writ petition. It held that since Section 6(xiv) of the Act 
had been repealed, appellants were not entitled to claim exemption of the 
provisions of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the lands in question were private properties 
of ex-Ruler of Rampur State as evident from Merger Agreement coupled with 
collateral letters and the notification issued under the Zamindari Abolition 
Act; thaftheir father was not a tenure holder and was the absolute owner of 
B 
the agricultural lands; that having regard to the definitions contained in 
Section 3 of the Act of"holding", "tenure holder" and "surplus land", Section C 
5 of the Act is not applicable to the lands held by the appellants merely because 
exemption under clause 6(xiv) was repealed; and that the Prescribed Authority 
as well as the Appellate Authority focused their attention on the exemption 
clause without considering the applicability or otherwise of Section 5 in regard 
to ceiling on holding. 
Respondents-authority contended that the definitions given in Section 
D 
3 must be understood and interpreted in the context of the scheme of the Act; 
that when the exemption given earlier by Section 6(xiv) was repealed and 
Section 6 as it stood on the relevant date did not give any exemption to the 
private properties of the ex-Ruler, it must be understood that the legislature E 
consciously took away the exemption given earlier; and that if the private 
properties of the Ruler were not covered by the Act, there was no reason as 
to why originally exemption was given under Section 6(xiv) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1Section6 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, speaks of exemption of certain lands which 
shall not be taken into consideratio

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