VINOD KUMAR versus THE COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 27-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

VINOD KUMAR 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.V. REDDI, JJ.] 
UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960-Sections 3(9), 
5, 29 and 30-Re-determination of ceiling area-Relevant date-Land holders 
A 
.B 
not in possession of land, claiming right over the property-By virtue of the C 
judgment of Supreme Court, land holders got title coupled with right to get 
possession-Land holders became tenure holders of land only on and from 
the date of the judgment-Further, till such time, all authorities including 
High Court held that land holders not entitled to any right over the property-
Hence, the decision can be construed as a decree or order by which tenure-
holders acquired right over this property. 
D 
Predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 executed a lease 
deed in favour of a Company in respect of the entire 375 bighas of land in 
1936. The Company claimed 'Adhiwasi' right over the land whereas the 
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents claimed 'J;lhumidari' right over 
the land. After prolonged litigation, High Court held that the predecesors-in- E 
interest of the respondents had Bhumidari right over 142-17-2Yz bighas of 
land and for the rest of the land the Company was declared to have' Adhiwasi' 
and 'Sirdar' rights. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 challenged the order. 
Meanwhile the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was 
enacted and the land covered by the lease deed was declared as surplus land F 
in the hands of Company. This Court on 23.11.1989 directed 64 bighas of 
land to be put in possession of respondent 3, 4 and 5 -
successors-in-interest 
of the original land owners and also directed for re-determination of the 
surplus land of respondents. Prescribed Authority held 14 bighas of land to 
be treated as surplus land in the hands of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. However, 
Appellate Authority held 2-2-10. 1/3 bighas ofland as surplus land; and that G 
23.11.1989 is the relevant date for the determination of the ceiling limit. 
Government took over the surplus land and al~otted to the Meerut Development 
Authority and others. The new allotees, Meerut Development Authority and 
State, filed writ petitions challenging the order of Appellate Authority. 
779 
fl 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions upholding the finding of the 
Appellate Authority. Hence the present appeals. 
State of U.P, Meerut Development Authority and appellants in Civil 
Appeal No. 422-23/1997 contended that the determination of the ceiling should 
have been made with reference to the date of the commencement of the Act; 
B that the finding of Appellate Authority and High Co~rt that 23.11.1989 -
date of Judgment of this Court is the relevant date for determination of the 
ceiling of the respondents is faulty and erroneous; and that the determination 
ofthe ceiling limit in respect of the respondents was an ongoing process and 
there was no applicability of Section 29 ofthe Ceiling Act. 
c 
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 contended that they were not holding the 
land in question and their rights in respect,ofthis·land were finally crystallized 
by the decision of this Court on 23.11.989 and by that judgment alone, this 
Court directed the authorities ·to hand over the possession of the land to these 
respondents and from thatdate onwards, 64 bighas of land could be treated as 
D lands having been in the account of the respondents. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellants pleaded that right from the beginning, the 
respondents were ~laiming right over the property ~f 64 bighas of land and 
E as such they were holding this land. Admittedly, the respondents were not in 
possession of this land. They were claiming r.ight over the property but the 
State was ·opposing their plea. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 got title coqpled 
with right over .the property by vinue of the Judgment date~ 23.11.1989. 
Therefore, the decision of this Court dated 23.11.1989 could be construed as 
a decree or order by which respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 acquired right over 
F this property. Land-holders became tenure-holders;of the land of 64 bighas 
only on and from 23.11.1989. Till such time, all authorities including High 
Court held that respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were not entitled to have any right 
over this property. Therefore, applying Section 29 ofU.P. Imposition of Ceiling 
on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the r

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