RAM CHANDRA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 30-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
RAM CHANDRA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
AUGUST 30, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960--
Amended by Act of 1972 ( 18 of 1973) further amended by U.P. Act 2 of 
1975-Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, I I-Ceiling area determination of. 
The 1960 Act makes provision for imposition of Ceiling on Land 
holdings and for determination of surplus land. It was amended by U.P. 
Act 18 of 1973 to lower the ceiling limit and to make provisions with 
regard to transfers of land in anticipation of the imposition of ceiling. 
This Act came into force on June 8, 1973. Further amendments were 
made in the Act by U.P. Act 2of1975 inserting Explanation I & E~pla­
nation II after sub-section (I) of section 5 as substituted by 1973 Act and 
given effect retrospectively i.e. from June 8, 1973. 
A notice under sectionl0(2) of Act was issued to the appellant and 
he filed objections submitting that Chhiddu Singh, his father, had 
executed a registered gift deed dated October 13, 1971 in respect of plot 
E 
No. 111 measuring 63 Bighas, 12 Biswas and 17 Dhur in favour of 
ap(lellant's mother. appellant's wife and two sons of the appellant. 
Chhiddu Singh died on April 28, 1973. Accordingly the said gifted land 
was not inherited by the appellant and it could not be treated as part of 
his holding for the purpose of imposition of ceiling. The prescribed 
authority overruled the objections, included the said land as part of the 
F 
holding of the appellant and declared the surplus land of the appellant 
, 
to the extent of 49 Bighas and 17 Biswas. 
The appellant filed an appeal to the First Additional Civil Judge. 
It was allowed partly and the surplus land was reduced to 42 Bighas 13 
Biswas and 6 Dhur. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in the 
G 
High Coo.rt which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed 
this appeal after obtaining special leave to appeal. 
The appellant urged before this Court ·that amendments intro-
duced by the 1973 Act are not retrospective in nature and are operative 
only from June 8, 1973, that the surplus land has to be determined as on 
H 
June 8, 1973, the date of coming into force of 1973 Act, and that the 
118 
'-
R.C. SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
119 
' 
land gifted by the appellant's father on October 13, 1971 could not be 
included in the holding of the appellant as he was not the tenure holder 
of the said land on the death of his father on April 28, 1973. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
A 
HELD: The 1973 Act postulates that ceiling area of a tenure 
8 
holder has to be determined in accordance with the provisions con-
tained in sec. 5 of the Act. While determining the ceiling area, the 
surplus land held in excess of ceiling area, which is to be acquired by the 
State, has also to be determined. [123H; 124A] 
For determining ceiling area sub-section (6) of section 5 provides 
that any transfer of land, which but for the transfer would have been 
declared surplus land under the Act if made after January 24, 1971 
shall be ignored and not taken into account but transfers falling within 
the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-sec. (6) are, 
excludiid, and such transfers even though made after January 24, 1971; 
have to be taken into account. [1248] 
In the instant case, the gift was made aud executed on October 13, 
1971 and it was a transfer of land and as it was made after January 24, 
1971 the transfer of land was in respect of land which would have been 
declared surplus land under the Act. This transfer did not fall within 
c 
the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub•section (6) of 
E 
section 5. Thus such gift was liable to be ignored for the purpose of 
determining the ceiling area applicable to the appellant. Sub-section (6) 
of section 5 does not speak of a transfer by the tenure holder but it 
speaks (/f any transfer of land made after January i4, 1971. So the conten-
tion of the appellant that gift was made by his father and not by him as 
tenure holder and he did not inherit the same on the death of his father 
F 
is untenable, since sub-section (6) of section 5 is applicable to a transfer 
even made by the predecessors-in-interest of the tenure holder whose 
ceiling area is to he determined and ;;.ho inherited the la~d prior to .lune 
8, 1973. The land which was transfered vide gift' deed dated October 13, 
1971 was land which but for the said transf

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