LexSHRI PREM BALLABH BELWAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~
f
,
•
y
..,..
SHRI PREM BALLABH BELWAL
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
JULY 24, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 : Sections
3(7)(9)( 17)(21) and 5 .
U.P. Zaminda1i Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950: Sectio113(14). c
-
Tenure lzo/dei--Excess land-Computatio11 of-Land held by wife of
the tenure holder as Asami right-Wife died dwi11g pendency of ceiling
proceedings-Sons succeeding to her State-Land held by wife included i11 the
hol'di11g of te11ure-holde1-<:laim that such property was not to be included in
the holding of husband rejected by Tribunal and High Cowt-Appeal--Held D
land held by wife as a member of the family shall be included in the holding
of appellant tenure-holde1-Surplus land should be detennined accordingly.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1279 of
1979.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.79 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2960 of 1977.
Satish Chandra, Shri Prakash and J.B. Gaur for the Appellant.
G.K. Mathur, Ashok K. Srivastava (Sudhir Kr. Gupta) (NP) for the F
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned .
G
Substitution allowed.
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are ordered to be transposed as appellants.
This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Al-
lahabad High Court made on January 4, 1979 in CMWP No. 2960/77. The H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
admitted position is that the first appellant as tenure-holder under the
provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(Act 1 of 1961) (for short, the 'Act') held bhumiswami lands of an extent
of 182 acres in Ram Nagar and Nainital Tehsils of Nainital District and in
't
tehsil Ranikhet of Almore district. In addition, his wife Smt. Basanti Devi
B held 127 bighas (24 acres) of agricultural land in the village Sanwalde,
Tehsil Ram Nagar. After the Act has come into force, the tenure-holder
was enjoined to file his return under Section 5 in Chapter II of the Act.
When the land held by this wife was sought to be included in the holding
of the appellant, his wife filed objection stating that she was in possession
'
c
of the land as Sirtan of the agricultural land which is later termed as
'Asami' right; she had no title to the property and was liable to be ejected
any time and, therefore,. the land could not be included in the holding of
the tenure-holder. The claim was rejected by the Tribunals and in the writ
petition, the learned Judge, while holding that Smt. Basanti Devi is not a
holder within the meaning of Section 3(9) of the Act and not a "tenure-
D holder" within the meaning of Section 3(17) of the Act, came to the
conclusion that being a memb.er of the "family" defined under Section 3(7)
f
of the Act, she was holding the land of the 24 acres. Consequently, the land
was required to be included in the holding the the tenure-holder, namely,
the appellant.
E
Shri Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel for the appellant, sought
to draw a distinction between holding and occupation of the land. Section
3(21) of the Act envisages that the expressions not defined in the Act would
be construed to be the appropriate expressions as defined in the U.P.
F
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'Abolition
Act'). Section 3(14) of the Abolition Act defines 'land' to include land held
and the land occupied. The Act envisages imposition of ceiling in respect
of the land held by a tenure-holder. The occupation thereby, which would
envisage some semblance of title to the property, alone would be included
G
in the holding of a tenure-holder. Since Basanti Devi was not holding land
as a tenure-holder but was in precarious occupation and enjoyment of the
"
land, the same cannot be included in the holding of the tenure-holder. It
is true that Section 3(14) of the Abolition Act, while defining the land,
made a distinction between land invested with title and land in occupation
and enjoyment for the purpose of the Abolition Act. The Ceiling Act
H envisages land held by the tenure-holder for the purpose of imposition of
i
P.B. BEL WAL v. STATE
3
the ceiling. The object of the Act is that no tenure-holder should hold and A
remain in possessioi{ and enjoyment of agricultural land in excess of ceiling
limit. The family must not hold in excess thereof. It would be seen that
distinction sougExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.