Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Object of legislation – Held: The object of the 1960 Act is to prescribe a ceiling limit on the area of land held by a ‘tenure holder’ for the purpose of securing the interest of the community at large to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers with a view to have equitable distribution of land–Land laws.
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: ss.3(9) and 3(17)–Prescribed Authority declared certain land of government lessee-respondent no.2 as surplus – Land declared surplus included the land sublet to the appellant (sub-lessee) by government lessee – Aggrieved appellant unsuccessfully approached the authorities – Writ petition also was dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: The lease in favour of Respondent No. 2 was made under the Government Grants Act, 1895 – Respondent No. 2 was put in possession of the land under the terms and conditions of the Government grant which did not permit any transfer of land by him without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Clause 9 – The conditions of grant though allowed sub-lease for agricultural purpose but sub-lessees cannot claim independent tenancy rights contrary to terms of grant – Thus, the appellant being a sub-lessee continues to be an ostensible holder of land and the government grantee, respondent No. 2, to be the real holder – The ceiling authorities as well as the High Court rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The very purpose behind enactment of the Ceiling Act is to prescribe a ceiling limit on the area of land held by a ‘tenure holder’ for the purpose of securing the interest of the community at large to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers with a view to have equitable distribution of land. [Para 18] [203-G-H]
The terms of the grant go to show that 4805 acres of land situated in Pargana Bazpur, District Nainital were leased out to the Government Lessee. Condition No. 9 of the Grant lays down the conditions to be fulfillled in the event of lessee transferring the lease land or a portion thereto except transfer by way of an inheritance. Conditions laid down by Clause 9 of the grant was made inapplicable in case of sub-leases made by the lessee while sub-letting the land in the ordinary course of agriculture. A perusal of Condition no. 1 of the Grant made it clear that the grantee was only allowed to transfer the land on fulfillment of conditions enumerated in the said clause. Furthermore, even the terms of the sub-lease specifically provided that if the sub-lessee intended to purchase the full rights of the Government Lessee thereby himself acquiring the status of an independent tenure holder, he could do so in confirmity with Clause 9 of the Government lease within a period of five years from the date of sub- lease on the payment of rent so fixed. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 24][208-H; 209-A-B, E-G]
Conjoint reading of Clause 5 of the sub-lease and Clause 9 of the Government lease clearly stipulated that acquisition of rights, if any, as independent tenure holder could only be by following the stipulations as contained in Clause 5 of the sublease and Clause 9 of the Government lease, which, in the instant case, admittedly, was not followed. An analysis of the terms and conditions of grant makes it clear that any transfer of land by the Government Lessee was subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the government lease and sub-lease and non-compliance of the conditions and transfer made without fulfilling the conditions would be void. Though, the conditions of grant allowed sub-lease of the land in the ordinary course of agriculture but contrary to the terms of grant, the sub-lessee can claim no independent tenancy right so as to frustrate the terms and tenure of the grant, as the sub-lease executed for ordinary course of agriculture cannot be treated as transfer for want of compliance of the conditions enumerated in the Clause itself. Thus, the appellants in their capacity as sub-lessee shall not acquire the status of an independent tenure holder. [Para 26][210-B-F]
Admittedly, the lease in favour of Respondent No. 2 was made under the Government Grants Act, 1895. Respondent No.
2 was put in possession of the land under the terms and conditions of the Government grant which did not permit any transfer of land by him without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Clause
9. The conditions of grant though allowed sub-lease for agricultural purpose but sub-lessees cannot claim independent tenancy rights contrary to terms of grant. [Para 27][210-F-G] Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously Known As M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. And Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 281 : [2004] 2 SCR 543 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.