Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADHO KUMAR SWARUP & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 704 1996 SCALE (1)1
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1383 OF 1978
O R D E R
Both the appeals are disposed of by common judgement
since the State and the aggrieved persons against the orders
of the prescribed authorities etc. have ultimately come to
this Court in this appeals.
It is not necessary to narrate all the facts in
details. Suffice it to state that under Section 10 of the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1960, (for
short, ‘the Principal Act’), proceedings were initiated and
ceiling area was determined. Thereon controversy has 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 which is the subject matter of appeals in this Court.
Even before their filing, the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 18 of
1973) (for short,’the Amendment Act’), had come into force
with effect from June 8,1973. Section 19 of the Amendment
Act provides thus:
"19. Transitory Provisions --- (1) All
proceedings for the determination of
surplus land under Section 9, Section
10, Section 11, Section 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 that Act as inserted by this Act:
Provided that the ceiling area in such
cases shall be determined in the
following manner --- (a) firstly, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
ceiling area shall be determined in
accordance with the principal Act, as it
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."
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 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 by the
Amendment Act. Thereafter, Ceiling area should be redermined
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.
As per the orders of the prescribed authority on
24.2.1975 placed on record as Annexure ‘E’ in C.A. No.
1383/78 filed by the respondents in the State appeal, the
prescribed authority had redetermined the ceiling area as
per provisions of the Amendment Act. Whether the
redetermination is in accordance with law is not a
controversy before us. So it is not necessary to go into it
since the proceedings have to be taken under the Amendment
Act. It would be open to the State or the persons concerned
to pursue the remedy according to law. As regards the
appeals at hand, as a consequence of Section 19, they stand
abated.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the
circumstances, without costs.