STATE OF U.P. ETC. versus MADHO KUMAR SWARUP AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 14-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. ETC. 
v. 
MADHO KUMAR SWARUP AND ORS. ETC. 
DECEMBER 14, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdi11gs (Ame11dement) Act, 
197~Section Jf>-Transitory provisions-Determillation of surplus 
lan~Proceedings pending u11der U.P. Impositio11 of Ceiling 011 Land Hold-
C ings Act-On Amendment Act coming into force-Abatement of proceedings 
for detennination of swp/us land a11d redete11ni11ation thereof 
Proceedings u/s 10 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Hold-
ings Act, 1960, were initiated and ceiling area was determined. The State 
D and the aggrieved person against the order of the prescribed authorities 
had filed these appeals as the controversy had arisen as to the extent of 
the ceiling area required to be retained by the respondent and surplus land 
that stood vested in the State. 
E 
F 
Dismissing these appeals, this Court 
HELD : Even before the filing of these appeals, the U.P. Imposition 
of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 had come into force 
w.e.f. 8.6.1973. As per section 19 of the Amendment Act, all proceedings for 
determination of surplus land u/ss 9 to 13, 30 of the Principal Act pending 
before any court or authority at the time of the commencement of the 
Amendment Act shall stand abated. Thereafter, ceiling area should be 
redetermined as per the Amendment Act. The Proviso provides procedure 
for determination of the ceiling area and the manner in which it requires 
to be done. [677-D, 678-8, El 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1042 of 
1977 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.76 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 207 of 1974. 
H 
Salish Chandra and T.L. Garg for the Appellants. 
676 
STATEv.M.KSWARUP 
677 
AB. Rohtagi and AK. Srivastava for the Respondents/State. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Both the appeals are disposed of by common judgment since the 
State and the aggrieved persons against the orders of the prescribed 
authorities etc. have ultimately come to this Court in this appeals. 
B 
It is not necessary to narrate all the facts in detail. Suffice it to state 
that under Section 10 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 
1960, (for short, 'the Principal Act'), proceedings were initiated and ceiling 
area was determined. Thereon controversy has arisen as to the extent of C 
the ceiling area required to be retai11ed by the respondent and surplus land 
that stood vested in the State which is the subject matter of appeals in this 
Court. 
Even before their filing, the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land D 
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 18 of 1973) (for short, 'the Amend-
ment Act'), had come in to force with effect from June 8, 1973. Section 19 
of the Amendment Act provides thus : 
"19. Transitory Provisions -- (1) All proceedings for the determina-
tion of surplus land under Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section E 
12, Section 13 or Section 30 of the Principal Act, pending before 
· any court or authority at the time of the commencement of this 
Act, shall abate and the prescribed authority shall start the 
proceedings for determination of the ceiling area under that Act 
afresh by issue of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of F 
that Ad as inserted by this Act : 
Provided that the ceiling area in such cases shall be determined in 
the following manner ---
(a) firstly, the ceiling area shall be determined in accordance with G 
the provisions of the principal Act, as stood before its amendment 
by this Act; 
(b) thereafter, the ceiling area shall re-determined in accordance 
with the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by this Act." H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Sub-section ~2) thereof is not material for the purpose of these cases, hence 
omitted. 
A reading thereof would show that all proceedings for determination 
of surplus land under Section 9 to 13, 30 of the Principal Act pending 
before any court or authority at the time of the commencement of the 
B Amendment Act shall stand abated and the prescribed authority shall start 
afresh the proceedings for determination of the ceiling area under the 
Principal Act, by issuance of a notice under sub-Section (2) of Section 9 
of the Principal Act as amended by the Amendment Act Ceiling should be 
determined firstly under the Principal Act as it stood before its amendment 
C by the Amendment Act. Thereafter, ceiling area should be redetermi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.