RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

                        [2015] 4 S.C.R. 1104


A          RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.
                                  V.
          STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 3375-3376 of 2005)
B                         APRIL 21, 2015

              [M.Y. EQBAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.)

        Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
c Act, 1960: s.10 - In land ceiling proceedings, Prescribed
  Authority declared 5446 acres to be surplus land by order
  dated 31.5.1962 and held appellant entitled to certain
  compensation - However, the said order was reviewed and
  appellant was held not entitled to any compensation as he
o was not the Bhumidar - High Court allowed the appellant's
  writ petition and held that order dated 31. 5. 1962 had attained
  finality and it was no longer open to the Authority to
  determine as to whether the appellant was tenure holder
  or not - Meanwhile Ceiling Act was amended and
E permissible extent of land to be held was reduced to 18
  acres-By order dated 29.11.1976, the Prescribed Authority
  declared 1067.53 acres of the land of the appellant in two
  villages to be excess and held him entitled to 18. 03 acres
  of land and this order was not challenged by appellant- Writ
F petition for correction of revenue records and compensation
  - Single judge of High Court directed authorities to correct
  the revenue records, pay compensation and hand over
  possession - On appeal, the Division Bench of High Court
  held that order dated 29.11. 1976 was an independent order
G and not an order made as a consequence to or to give effect
  to order dated 30. 7.1976 and as order dated 29.1.1976 was
  not challenged, same had to be given effect to - On appeal,
  held: Once it is held that the appellant came in possession
H                               1104
    RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF                 1105
              UTTAR PRADESH

of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis of lease treating A
the appellant as a tenant, the appellant cannot be held to
be a tenure holder - Hence, in any circumstance the
appellant would be entitled to retain the land to the extent
of 18 acres which is the ceiling limit- No reason to interfere
with impugned order.                                            B

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. Indisputably, the appellant came in
possession of the land by virtue of lease dated                c
25.01.1951. By the said lease deed about 8874 bighas
of land was transferred by way of permanent lease.
Before the lease was executed, the U.P. Zamidari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into effect
from 24.01.1951 putting a restriction on the transfer of       o
land and, further all transfers made after 01.07 .1948
were held not to be recognised. Hence, neither the lease
deed nor any authority would have recognised the
appellant as a tenure holder. Moreover, the lease of the
land was granted to the appellant on payment of rent           E
and on the terms and conditions contained in the said
lease deed. Admittedly, the appellant was permitted to
retain 428 bighas of land spread in three villages while
determining the surplus land under Section 12 of the
Act. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of ceiling on Land           F
Holdings Act, 1960 was amended with effect from
08.06.1973 whereby the ceiling area of the land was
reduced from 40 acres to 18.03 acres. As a result, a
fresh ceiling proceeding was initiated under the
amended Act. Taking into consideration the entire facts       G
of the case and the sequence of events the High Court
came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to
18.03 acres of land in terms of order dated 29.11.1976
passed in the ceiling proceeding redetermining the            H
1106        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


 A     surplus area held by the Company after amendment
       came into effect in the Act. [Paras 14 to 16] [1112-F-G;
       1113-E-H; 1114-A-C]

        2. Once it is held that the appellant came in
 B possession of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis
   of lease treating the appellant as a tenant, the appellant
   cannot be held to be a tenure holder. Hence, without
   going into other questions it can safely be concluded
   that in any circumstance the appellant would be entitled
 C to retain the land to the extent of 18 acres which is the
   ceiling limit. Hence, the prescribed authority is under
   an obligation to give an opportunity to the appellant to
   exercise its option as to which land it opts to retain to
   the extent of 18 acres and not more than that. [Para 18]
 D [1114-0-F]
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
       3375-3376 of 2005.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2003 of the
 E Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
   Special Appeal Nos. 545 and 550 of 2000.
           Rakesh Dwivedi, Saurab Agarwal, Sansriti Pathak,
       Ashish Tiwari (For Ruby Singh Ahuja) for the Appellant.
 F        P. N. Misra, Sanjay Kr. Visen, Abhishek Chaudhary, Anil
       Kumar Jha, Vinay Garg for the Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1.These appeals by special leave are
 G directed against the judgment and order dated 12Lh
   December, 2003 of the Allahabad High Court whereby
   Division Bench of the High Court allowed the special appeals
   preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and set aside order
   dated 17.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil
 H Miscellaneous Writ Peitition, who directed the authorities to
    RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF               1107
        UTTAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

correct the revenue record, pay compensation and deliver A
the possession of the disputed land to the appellant.

     2. The factual matrix of the case is that the name of the
appellant was recorded as Bhumidar of various lands in
Nagina Tehsil. In the proceedings initiated under the U.P. s
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short
'Act of 1960'), the appellant was served with a notice under
Section 10 and the Prescribed Authority declared an area
of 5446 acres to be surplus land vide order dated 31.05.1962
and the appellant was held to be entitled to certain amount C
of compensation. However, later on in 1976, on the
application moved by the Collector, Bijnor, the order dated
31.05.1962 was reviewed and set aside by the Prescribed
Authority and the appellant was held to be not entitled to
any compensation as the appellant was not the Bhumidar D
and the notice issued to it under Section 10 was erroneous.
The appeal filed by the aggrieved appellant was dismissed
by the District Court as not maintainable.

     3. The appellant, thereafter, moved the High Court by E
way of writ petition praying therein for issuance of
appropriate writ for quashing the orders of the Prescribed
Authority as also that of District Court. Learned Single Judge
of the High Court allowed writ petition of the appellant with
costs holding that the order passed by the Prescribed F
Authority on 31.5.1962 had become final and it was no
longer open to the said Authority to determine as to whether
the appellant was a tenure holder or not. The appeal by
special leave (being Civil Appeal No.304 7 of 1983) preferred
by the State Government before the Supreme Court was G
dismissed vide order dated 15.1.1996 for non-prosecution.

    4. Meanwhile, the Ceiling Act was amended and the
permissible extent of land to be held was reduced to 18
acres. Notice dated 7 .10.1976 was issued to the appellant H
1108      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 4 S.C.R.


 A and vide order dated 29.11.1976, the Prescribed Authority
   declared 1067.53 acres of land of the appellant in two
   villages to be excess and this order was not challenged by
   the appellant. Notification dated 16.2.1966 was issued under
   Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act whereby lands of the
 B appellant in other villages were proposed to be declared as
   reserved forest and vide notification dated 27.7.1970 under
   Section 20 of the Forest Act, such lands were declared as
   reserved forest area. These notifications were also not
   challenged by the appellant.
 c
        5. After the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred
   by the State Government, the appellant approached the
   authorities for correction of the revenue record and payment
   of compensation in accordance with order dated 31.05.1962.
 D However, as the request was not heeded to, the appellant
   filed a writ petition for complying with the High Court
   judgment dated 05.07.1982 and paying compensation of
   Rs.4, 19,484/- with interest from 1962 onwards, for returning
   possession of the land and for correcting the revenue entries
 E in favour of the appellant in compliance with the orders
   passed in 1962. Learned Single Judge of the High Court,
   vide judgment dated 17.2.2000, directed the authorities to
   correct the revenue record, pay compensation and hand
 F over the possession of the property.

       6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single
   Judge of the High Court, the State Government preferred
   an appeal through the Collector who was the Prescribed
   Authority and another appeal through the Chief Conservator
 G of Forest. The appellant contested the appeals on the
   ground that the order dated 29.11.1976 was based on the
   order dated 30.07.1976 which was set aside by the High
   Court vide order dated 05.07.1982 and hence order dated
 H 29.11.1976 was not required to be challenged separately.
    RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF                    1109
        UTIAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

The notice dated 07.10.1976 preceding the order dated              A
29.11.1976 was also alleged to have been sent to Nagina
Tehsil and not at the registered office of the appellant. It was
also contended that the Notifications under Section 4 and
Section 20 of the Forest Act were a nullity as the statutory
procedure was not complied with and as the land was                B
declared to be a holding of the company vide order dated
31.05.1962 and such lands were not permitted to be
declared as part of a reserved forest in view of Section 3 of
the Forest Act. The Forest Department was alleged to be
bound by the order dated 31.05.1962 as it was part of the          C
State of U.P. and had no separate identity and the
maintainability of the appeal filed by it was challenged on
the said ground. It was argued that the Notifications under
Sections 4 and 20 could not have been produced before the          D
court for the first time.

     7. The Division Bench of the High Court, allowing the
appeals preferred by the State, held that order dated
29.11.1976 was an independent order made in pursuance
of notice dated 07.10.1976 re-determining the surplus area E
after the Ceiling Act was amended in 1973 and 1976 and
not an order made as a consequence to or to give effect to
the order dated 30.07.1976. The High Court held that as
order dated 29.11.1976 was not challenged, the same had F
to be given effect to and considered· while making any
correction in the revenue record, even if it was made without
valid service of notice. The High Court further held that the
Forest Department was a part of the State Government and
bound by orders passed in relation to other State G
Departments. It was further held that the Court had the
power to permit the production of additional evidence in
appeal and held that such power had to be exercised herein
for doing complete justice between the parties as the Forest
Department was not a party to the writ petition and hence H
1110         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.


 A     could not bring the proceedings under the Forest Act to the
       notice of the Court and as the Notifications under the Forest
       Act were required to be taken on record as they had attained
       finality.

 B          8. The contention that the Notification under Section 4
       could not have been issued in relation to a holding was
       rejected by the High Court on the ground that the same
       would render the purpose of inviting objections under
       Section 6 and holding enquiry under Section 7 unnecessary.
 C     Having not made any objection under Section 6 of the Forest
       Act, the rights of the appellant were held to have been
       extinguished under Section 9. The Notifications under
       Sections 4 and 20 were also held liable to be given effect
       to as a decree of the civil court as the same had not been
 D     challenged by the appellant despite being aware of the
       same. The appellant had mentioned the notifications in the
       memorandum of writ petition (being W.P. No.£3625/2000)
       wherein the appellant had sought relief based on a purported
       assurance by the Forest Settlement Officer to issue
 E     corrigendum for excluding the land from the category of
       reserved forest area. However, this writ petition was noted
       to have been dismissed as being premature vide judgment
       dated 25.05.2000. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of
 F     the High Court, the Company has preferred present appeals
       by special leave.

       9. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
   appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned
   order passed by the High Court is contrary to the settled
 G principles of law. While elaborating the case of the
   appellant, learned counsel submitted that once the order
   dated 31.5.1962 passed by the Prescribed Authority had
   become final and binding between the parties, every order
 H running contrary to the said order would have lost its force.
    RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF                  1111
        UTTAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

According to the learned counsel, the order dated A
29.11.1976 and Notification dated 27. 7 .1970 issued under
the Indian Forest Act automatically lost its force in the light
of the judgment rendered by the High Court on 5. 7.1982.
Learned counsel further contended that the High Court has
failed to consider that the order dated 30.7.1976 passed in B
review petition by the Prescribed Authority has been set
aside by the High Court and the Civil Appeal was dismissed.
Learned counsel further contended that the High Court in
its earlier order dated 5. 7 .1982 has categorically held that
the rights of the appellant have been finally determined by C
the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.5.1962. There
cannot be any dispute that the order dated 31.5.1962
attained its finality after the challenge of the order by the
State attained finality up to this Court.
                                                                D
     10. Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel assailing the
procedure adopted in the ceiling proceedings, submitted that
the order passed by the Authority without affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing is null and void and cannot
be sustained in law. The declaration issued under the Indian     E
Forest Act declaring the land as forest is also wholly without
jurisdiction.

     11. Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent, on the other hand submitted that as a matter F
of fact out of the land which already stood vested in the State
pursuant to U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (for short, "Act of 1950"), a portion measuring 8874
bighas was transferred to the appellant on the basis of lease
deed dated 25.1.1951. Learned counsel submitted that no G
scrutiny or examination was done by the Tehsildar, Nagina
before passing the order dated 28.4.1954 whereby the
name of the appellant was entered in the khatauni.

    12. Learned counsel further submitted that the               H
1112      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 4 S.C.R.


 A Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31. 5.1962 declared
   5466 acres of land as surplus land under the ceiling
   proceedings. The said order dated 31.5.1962 was passed
   by the Authority without adjudicating as to whether the
   appellant is a tenure holder in terms of the lease deed.
 B Learned counsel submitted that the ex-zamindar after the
   vesting of the entire land received compensation for nine
   villages and bonds to that effect were also dispatched to the
   said landlord.

 C     13. Justifying the correctness of the proceeding and the
   Notification under the Indian Forest Act, learned counsel
   submitted that the said order and notification declaring the
   land in question as forest land were never challenged by
   the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent-State filed
 D application seeking review of the order dated 31. 5.1962 on
   the ground that the appellant was never the tenure holder
   and Bhumidar of the land declared surplus.

        14. Much stress has been given by the learned counsel
E for the appellant on the notice dated 8.01.1961 issued under
  Section 10(2) of the U.P. Act and the order dated 31.05.1962
  whereby the prescribed authority treated the appellant as a
  tenure holder. We do not find any force in the submission
  of the learned counsel. Indisputably, the appellant came in
F possession of the land by virtue of the lease dated
  25.01.1951 executed by Raja Harishchandra Singh which
  came into effect from 01.07.1951. By the said lease deed
  about 8874 bighas of land was transferred by way of
  permanent lease. The relevant portion of the lease deed is
G extracted hereinbelow:-

         " ... In consideration of the rent hereinafter reserved and
         on the covenants, stipulations and conditions
         hereinafter contained and on the part of lease paid,
 H       observed and performed, the lessor doth hereby
    RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF                   1113
        UTTAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     demise with the lessee the said lands hereinafter            A
     particularly described in the Schedule hereinafter
     written - - with all surface rights, easements and
     appurtenances whatsoever belonging or in anywE,Y
     appurteneancing thereto as and by way of a permanent
     lease to hold the said land as hereditary tenants as         B
     meant under Uttar Pradesh tenancy Act (Act XVII of
     1939) subject to such conditions (Ramgarh Farm &
     Industries Ltd. Sadri Narain Singh, Director, RamgarlJ.
     Farm & Industries Ltd., Sindh Nath Singh, Director for
     Ramgarh Farm & Industries Ltd, Ram Narqain Singh             C
     & Co., B.N. Singh, Managing agents Hari Chandra Raj
     Singh) [page 41 conditions, restrictions and limitations
     as imposed uinder these present yielding and paying
     therefore, the rent hereinafter specified provided           D
     however that this lease deed shall be deemed to have
     commenced on and from the 1fil day of fas Ii year 1358
     corresponding to the 1fil day of July, 1951 ... "

                                           (Emphasis given)
                                                                  E
     15. It will not be out of place to mention here that before
the lease was executed in 1951, the Act of 1950 was
enacted and the said Act came into effect from 24.01.1951
putting a restriction on the transfer of land and, fu1iher all
transfers made after 01.07.1948 were held not to be F
recognised. Hence, neither the lease deed nor any authority
would have recognised the appellant as a tenure holder.
Moreover, the lease of the land was granted to the appellant
on payment of rent and on the terms and conditions
contained in the said lease deed.                                G

    16. Be that as it may, admittedly, the appellant was
permitted to retain 428 bighas of land spread in three villages
while determining the surplus land under Sec11on 12 of the
Act. It is also not in dispute that Act of 1960 was amended       H
1114        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.



 A     with effect from 08.06.1973 whereby the ceiling area of the
       land was reduced from 40 acres to 18.03 acres. As a result,
       a fresh ceiling proceeding was initiated under the amended
       Act.

 B       17. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case
   and the sequence of events the High Court came to the
   conclusion that the appellant is entitled to 18.03 acres of
   land in terms of the order dated 29.11.1976 passed in the
   ceiling proceeding redetermining the surplus area held by
 C the Company after amendment came into effect in the Act.

        18. We have given our anxious consideration to the
   matter and in our view once it is held that the appellant came
   in possession of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis
 D of lease treating the appellant as a tenant, the appellant
   cannot be held to be a tenure holder. Hence, without going
   into other questions it can safely be concluded that in any
   circumstance the appellant would be entitled to retain the
   land to the extent of 18 acres which is the ceiling limit.
 E Hence, the prescribed authority is under an obligation to give
   an opportunity to the appellant to exercise its option as to
   which land it opts td retain to the extent of 18 acres and not
   more than that.

 F          19. For the reason aforesaid, we do not find any reason
       to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High
       Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with the
       observation and direction made hereinabove.

 G Devika Gujral                                  Appeals dismissed.