Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAM SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)567
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises against the order
of the High Court of Allahabad made on February 22, 1980 in
W.P. No.6667 of 1978. The finding, as a fact, recorded by
both the Tribunals under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act is that the appellant had cut Out the
existing trees as on January 24, 1971 and planted new
tree.On that premise, the question arose: whether the trees
planted by the appellant would be a grove land within the
meaning of Section 23 [8] of the Act which reads as under:
[8] "grove land" means any specific
piece of land in a holding having
trees not including [Guava, Papaya,
banana or vine plants] planted
thereon before January 24, 1971, in
such numbers that they preclude, or
when full grown will preclude, the
land or any considerable portion
thereof from being used primarily
for any other purpose, and the
threes on such land constitute a
grove".
A reading thereof clearly indicates that the
Legislature has put a cut off date for existing trees as on
January 24, 1971 except the Guava, Papaya, Banana or vine
plants planted before that date. In other words, the
Legislature has indicated that any grove existing as on that
date with fully grown trees would be the grove except the
excepted trees and for the purpose of the Act. By necessary
implication any tree planted after that date cannot be the
grove land under the Act. Though the contention of Shri
Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant that in
place of fallen trees some new trees were grown, is
plausible, we cannot give acceptance to the contention since
the Legislature has specifically put a date of the existing
trees, viz., January 24, 1971. under these circumstances,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be
unwarranted.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.