RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 1104 · Decided: 21-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 1104 
A 
RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. 
V. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3375-3376 of 2005) 
B 
APRIL 21, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
c Act, 1960: s.10 - In land ceiling proceedings, Prescribed 
Authority declared 5446 acres to be surplus land by order 
dated 31.5.1962 and held appellant entitled to certain 
compensation - However, the said order was reviewed and 
appellant was held not entitled to any compensation as he 
o was not the Bhumidar - High Court allowed the appellant's 
writ petition and held that order dated 31. 5. 1962 had attained 
finality and it was no longer open to the Authority to 
determine as to whether the appellant was tenure holder 
or not -
Meanwhile Ceiling Act was amended and 
E permissible extent of land to be held was reduced to 18 
acres-By order dated 29.11.1976, the Prescribed Authority 
declared 1067.53 acres of the land of the appellant in two 
villages to be excess and held him entitled to 18. 03 acres 
of land and this order was not challenged by appellant- Writ 
F petition for correction of revenue records and compensation 
- Single judge of High Court directed authorities to correct 
the revenue records, pay compensation and hand over 
possession - On appeal, the Division Bench of High Court 
held that order dated 29.11. 1976 was an independent order 
G and not an order made as a consequence to or to give effect 
to order dated 30. 7.1976 and as order dated 29.1.1976 was 
not challenged, same had to be given effect to - On appeal, 
held: Once it is held that the appellant came in possession 
H 
1104 
RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF 
1105 
UTTAR PRADESH 
of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis of lease treating A 
the appellant as a tenant, the appellant cannot be held to 
be a tenure holder - Hence, in any circumstance the 
appellant would be entitled to retain the land to the extent 
of 18 acres which is the ceiling limit- No reason to interfere 
with impugned order. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Indisputably, the appellant came in 
possession of the land by virtue of lease dated c 
25.01.1951. By the said lease deed about 8874 bighas 
of land was transferred by way of permanent lease. 
Before the lease was executed, the U.P. Zamidari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into effect 
from 24.01.1951 putting a restriction on the transfer of o 
land and, further all transfers made after 01.07 .1948 
were held not to be recognised. Hence, neither the lease 
deed nor any authority would have recognised the 
appellant as a tenure holder. Moreover, the lease of the 
land was granted to the appellant on payment of rent E 
and on the terms and conditions contained in the said 
lease deed. Admittedly, the appellant was permitted to 
retain 428 bighas of land spread in three villages while 
determining the surplus land under Section 12 of the 
Act. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of ceiling on Land F 
Holdings Act, 1960 was amended with effect from 
08.06.1973 whereby the ceiling area of the land was 
reduced from 40 acres to 18.03 acres. As a result, a 
fresh ceiling proceeding was initiated under the 
amended Act. Taking into consideration the entire facts G 
of the case and the sequence of events the High Court 
came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to 
18.03 acres of land in terms of order dated 29.11.1976 
passed in the ceiling proceeding redetermining the H 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A surplus area held by the Company after amendment 
came into effect in the Act. [Paras 14 to 16] [1112-F-G; 
1113-E-H; 1114-A-C] 
2. Once it is held that the appellant came in 
B possession of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis 
of lease treating the appellant as a tenant, the appellant 
cannot be held to be a tenure holder. Hence, without 
going into other questions it can safely be concluded 
that in any circumstance the appellant would be entitled 
C to retain the land to the extent of 18 acres which is the 
ceiling limit. Hence, the prescribed authority is under 
an obligation to give an opportunity to the appellant to 
exercise its option as to which land it opts to retain to 
the extent of 18 acres and not more than that. [Para 18] 
D [1114-0-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3375-3376 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2003 of the 
E Division Bench of High Court of Judicatur

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