STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 11-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
A 
v. 
THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 11, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Sections 5( 1 ), 
~n&m 
c 
Ceiling area-Compensation of-Tenure-holder parted with poss~s-
sion of land under agreement to sell prior to appointed day-Held : land must 
be included in his holding for calculating surplus land-Even in absence of 
actual physical possession he could be said to be in constructive or legal D 
possession as full owner-Tenure-holder could not contend that land covered 
by agreement to sell could not form part of his holding as transferee was 
protected by S.53- A of Transfer of Property Act-Transfer of Property Act, 
I882, Ss. 53-A, 54-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, 
s. 11. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : 
E 
1section 53-A-Provided protection to proposed transferee of land 
unde1~ agreement to self-But on basis of such protection, it could not be 
clairried by proposed transferor that land covered by agreement to sell was not F 
liable to be included in his land holding for computation of surplus area 
under Land Ceiling Act-S. 53-A was not concerned with ownership of 
land-Nor could ·it be pressed into service against a third party like the State 
acting under Land Ceiling Act-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Ac~ 1960, Ss. 5(1), 3(17) & (9). 
G 
Respondent No. 3 was issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. 
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 for submitting his 
objections for deciding whether the said respondent was holding any excess 
land above the permissible ceiling area which would naturally vest in the 
State. Respondent No. 3 took the stand that he had entered into an H 
513 
' 
:,14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A agreement to sell some of his lands prior to the appointed day and had 
parted with possession thereof and, therefore, the said lands were not 
liable to be included in his holding as a tenure-holder for the purpose of 
deciding whether his holding exceeded the ceiling limit as per Section 5(1) 
of the Act. The prescribed Authority held that the said lands covered by 
B the Agreements to Sell which were not followed up by Sale Deeds remained 
in the ownership and holding of the respondent tenure-holder and were 
liable to be included for the purpose of calculating the permissible land 
within the ceiling area as per Section 5(1) of the Act. 
The appellate authority overruled the decision of the Prescribed 
C Authority. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the 
transferees were protected by Sectio1. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 
1882. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant-State it was contended that the lands 
D covered by the agreement did not cease to belong to Respondent No. 3 on 
the appointed day and were liable to be included in computation of 
permissible ceiling area available to respondent No. 3 under the Act; that 
mere Agreements to Sell created no interest in the proposed transferees 
and that it was not necessary for the applicability of Section 5(1) of the 
E Act to show that the tenure-holder was actually in physical possession of 
the lands owned by him; and that even lands in the constructive possession 
of respondent No. 3 through licensees or tenants or even prospective 
transferee under Agreements to Sell in their favour would all be liable to 
be included within the holding of the tenure-holder. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. A conjoint reading of Section 5(1), 3(17) and 3(9) of the 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings "Act, 1960 clearly indicates 
that if a person holds the land as bhumidar, sirdar or asami, amongst 
G others, as laid down by the said provision then such land will be liable to 
be included for computing ceiling of his holding under Section 5(1). The 
term 'holding held by a tenure-holder' cannot be confined only to such 
lands which are possessed by him as owner and would exclude such lands 
which are owned by him but which are not in his physical possession. 
H Section 5(1) nowhere contemplates that the lands must also be physically 
:, 
,___
' 
STAlEv. DISTT.JUDGE 
515 
possessed by him before he could be said to have held such lands even A 
though he was the full owner thereof. A person can be said to be holding 
the land as full owner even if the actual possession of such land might have 
been parted by him

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