Supreme Court of India
VINOD KUMARversusTHE COMMISSIONER AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2004 INSC 318
- Decided
- 27 April 2004
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Court held that the 23 November 1989 judgment conferred title and possession on the respondents, making them tenure‑holders, and therefore the ceiling area must be re‑determined with reference to that date under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether the 23 November 1989 judgment, which granted title and possession of 64 bighas of land to respondents Vinod Kumar and others, constituted a decree that made them tenure‑holders under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The State of U.P. and Meerut Development Authority argued that the ceiling should be determined as of the Act’s commencement (8 June 1973), while the respondents contended that the relevant date was the Supreme Court judgment, which crystallised their rights. The Court held that the judgment indeed conferred a legal right to hold the land, thereby triggering Section 29’s provision for re‑determination of ceiling area as of 23‑11‑1989. Consequently, the ceiling area was to be fixed based on that date, and the allotments to the development authority were set aside. All appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The appropriate date for determining the ceiling area under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – whether it is the Act's commencement date or the Supreme Court judgment date of 23‑11‑1989.
- Whether the Supreme Court judgment of 23‑11‑1989 constitutes a decree or order that gives the respondents the right to hold the land, making them tenure‑holders for purposes of the Act.
- Applicability of Section 29 of the Ceiling Act to the re‑determination of ceiling area in this case.
- Validity of the land allotments made to Meerut Development Authority in view of the surplus land determination.
Legislation cited
Subjects
land ceilingsurplus landtenure‑holderre‑determinationSection 29holding definitionUttar Pradesh land reformsadverse possessionlease rights
Judgment
VINOD KUMAR A
v.
THE COMMISSIONER AND ORS.
APRIL 27, 2004
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.V. REDDI, JJ.] .B
UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960-Sections 3(9),
5, 29 and 30-Re-determination ofceiling area-Relevant date-Land holders
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 re-determination of the ceiling area is to be
G done with reference to the date of the judgment of this Court i.e. 23.11.1989
and the decision ofthe Division Bench is correct in this regard. {789-B-D)
Bhudan Singh and Anr. v. Nabi Bux and Anr., (19691 2 SCC 481 and
State of U.P. v. District Judge and Ors., (1997) 1S~C496, referred to. .
H 1.2. The Meerut Development Authority had been allotted this land by
VINOD KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 781
the State. As the land comes within the ceiling area, the same will have to be A
returned to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. High Court has passed appropriate
orders and as such there is no reason to interfere with the same. The appeals
tiled by the allottees of land are also without any merits. They were not entitled
to get allotment of these lands and the same was cancelled for various reasons.
[789-E-F) B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 422-23/1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.95 and 2.2.96 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ PetitioA No.12900/81 and in Review Petition No.
62561-B of 1995 respectively.
c
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 424-426/1997 and Civil Appeal Nos. 427-429/1997.
Subodh Markandeya, Mukesh K. Giri, Smt. Chitra Markandeya and
Kamiendra Mishra for the Appellant. D
Ranjit Kumar and Subodh Markandeya, S. Janani, Anis Suhrawardy,
Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, Ms. Rashmi Singh and Kamlendr~ Mishra for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. These appeals arise out of a common
Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. By
the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench disposed of l 0 Writ Petitions
filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under U.P. Imposition F
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling
Act"). The matter relates to the fixation of ceiling under the provisions of the
Ceiling Act.
Predecessors-in-interest of Yashvir Singh (Respondent No. 3), Satvir
Singh (Respondent No. 4) and Jagdishpal Singh (Respondent No. 5) in Civil G
Appeal Nos. 424-429of1997 had executed a lease in 1~3_6 in favour of Delhi
Cloth & General Mills (hereinafter referred to as "D.C.M."). The lease was for
a period of 25 years in respect of 375 bighas of land. When U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Z.A. Act")
came into force, a compensation statement was prepared under Chapter IXA
of Z.A. Act and DCM was held to be 'Adhiwasi' of this land. The original H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A land owners, namely, predecessors-in-interest ofR3, R4 and R5 filed objection
to this and claimed 'Bhumidari' right over the entire land. Their plea was
initially accepted but the Compensation Officer vide his order dated 3.1.1957
allowed the appeal filed by DCM and against that appellate Order, the land
owners went in appeal before the Board of Revenue, but their claim was
rejected.
B
After the commencement of the Ceiling Act, the land covered by the
lease deed was sought to be declared as surplus land in the hands of DCM.
The land-owners claimed 'Bhumidari' right over the said land. Their claim was
rejected by the Prescribed Authority. They went in appeal and the Appellate
C Authority held that DCM had only 'Asami' right. These orders were challenged
before the High Court in Writ petitions and the matter was remitted to the
lower Appellate Court. The writ petitions were again filed against the order
passed by the Lower Appellate Court and the matter was decided by the High
Court on 28.11.1969. Against that Judgment, special appeals were filed and
it was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the predecessors-
D in-interest of Respondent No. 3 , 4 and 5 had got 'Bhumidari' right over 142
Bighas out of total land which was given on lease to DCM. Their claim
regarding the rest of the land was rejected. The land owners thereafter filed
Special Leave Petition before this Court and this Court remitted the matter to
the High Court for fresh decision. On 23. 9.1987, the matter was decided afresh
E holding that the predecessors-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had
'Bhumidari' right over 142-17-2 112 Bighas of land and for the rest of the land
the DCM was declared to have 'Adhiwasi' and 'Sirdar' rights. Against that
decision, the matter was again taken up in appeal before this Court by Special
leave and all the parties to that proceedings ultimately accepted the position
that the Respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 herein who are the successors-in-interest
F of the original land owners are entitled to have rights over 72.50 bighas of
disputed land. A!l extent of 8-7-0 bighas of land was excluded and 64 bighas
of land was directed to be put in possession of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and
5 and Prescribed Authority was directed to determine the surplus land of
these respondents. The operative portion of the Judgment of this Court is as
G follows:-
"The assertion of the St~te ofUttar Pradesh that !DOSt of the lands
in dispute have been taken over by the State as ceiling surplus land
is not disputed. On account of the fact that ceiling surplus had been
H
determ\ned in the hands of the respondent-company and our present
order holding that the appellants have interest in regard to about 64
. ,.
VINOD KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 783 .
bighas of land out of the land in dispute, a fresh detennination of the .A
surplus has to be done. The appellant should be entitled to be put
into possession of the land out of 64 bighas which would be within
the ceiling limit. We, therefore, direct that the competent authority
shall proceed to detennine the ceiling surplus under the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, I960, within three months from ·
today and once that is done, the appellants shall be entitled to B
restoration of possession of the area coming within the ceiling limit ,
and the balance shall vest in the Uttar Pradesh Government. The
competent authority shall forward a copy of his detennination within
two weeks after three months to the Registry of this court."
Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the prescribed authority passed
t
an order on I I. IO. I 990 and held that I4 bighas out of 64 bighas of land are
to be treated as surplus land in the hands of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
An appeal was filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority and the
Appellate Authority held that only an extent of 2-2-IO. I/3 bighas of land
could be treated as surplus land in the hands of Jagdishpal Singh (RS). D
Against this Order, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed three writ petitions.
Two other persons, namely, Omvati and Shastri Sankari Avas Samiti Ltd. had
also filed two separate writ petitions. The surplus lands taken over by the
Government were allotted to some persons. They too filed writ petitions
challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. Certain lands were given to E
Meerut Development Authority. As the Appellate Authority had modified the
order of the Prescribed Authority by reducing surplus area of the land, the
Meerut Development Authority also filed three writ petitions and by the
impugned Judgment, all these writ petitions were disposed of holding that the
finding of the Appellate Authority was correct. That decision is challenged F'
before us.
We heard Shri Subodh Markandeya, learned senior Counsel, for the
appellant and Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior Counsel, for the Meerut
Development Authority and also Counsel, for the appellant in Civil Appeal
Nos. 422-423/1997. The learned Counsel for the State of U.P. contended that G
the Appellate Authority seriously erred in fixing the ceiling area of Respondent
Nos. 3, 4 and 5. According to the learned Counsel, the Ceiling Act came into
force on 8.6.1973 and the detennination of the ceiling should have been made
with reference to the date of the commencement of the Act. It was argued that
the finding of Appellate Authority and the High Court that 23 .11.1989, i.e., the H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A date of Judgment of this Court is the relevant date for determination of the
ceiling of these respondents is faulty and erroneous. It was contended that
the determination of the ceiling limit in respect of these respondents was an
ongoing process and there was no applicability of Section 29 of the Ceiling
Act. The gist of the argument of the learned Counsel for the State was that
B all determinatfons of ceiling have to be done only with reference to 8.6.1973,
i.e., the commencement of the Ceiling Act and not any other date. ~is
argument was supported by the Counsel who appeared for the Meerut
Development Authqrity and also the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 422-23/
1997.
C The Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3, ~ and 5, on the other hand,
contended that these respondents were not holding the land in question and
their rights in respect of this land were finally crystallized by the decision of
this Court on 23.l 1.1989 and by that Judgmen(alone, this Court directed the
authorities to hand over the possession of the land to these respondents and
from that date onwards, 64 bighas of land could be treated as lands having
D been in the account of these respondents. Therefore, the determination of the
ceiling of land applicable to these respondents was rightly done with reference
\
to the date 23.11.1989.
Some of the provisions contained in the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and
Land Holdings Act, 1960, are relevant to be noted. Under Section 3(9) of the
E Ceiling Act, 'holding' is defined as follows :-
" 'holding' means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidar,
sirdar, asami of gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
or as a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than asub-
F tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sub-lessee of a Government
lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the
period of the lease".
----section 5 (1) and the Explanations I and II are also relevant :-
G 5. Imposition of Ceiling- (I). "[On and from the commencement of
the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment)
Act, 1972], no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate
throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land iii excess of the ceiling area
applicable to him.
H [Explanation I. - In determining the ceiling area applicable to a
·-
VINOD KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER [BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 785
tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in A
his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person,
shall be taken into account.
Explanation II. - (If on or before January 24, 197 l, any land was
held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory
possession and the name of any other person is entered in the B
annual register after the said date] either in addition to or to the
exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of
transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed,
unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed
authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the
land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the C
second mentioned person.]
Section 29 and Section 30 are as follows:
29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land. -
Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition D
of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, -
(a) Any land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under.
a decree or order of any court, or as a result of succession
or transfer, or by prescription in consequenc~ of adverse
possession, and such land together with the land already E
held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him;
or
(b) any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result
- of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grove-
·1and loses its character as grove-land or any land F
exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the.
categories exempted,
the ceiling area shall be liable to be redetermined and accordingly the
provisions of this Act, except Section 16, shall mutatis mutandis
apply. G
30. Determination of surplus land regarding future acquisition. -
(1) Where any land has become liable to be treated as surplus land
under Section 29, the tenure-holder shall within such period as
may be prescribed submit, a statement to the Prescribed Authority H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A ·. in the fonn and in the manner laid down under S('ction 9 indicating
in the statement the plot or plots which he would like to retain
as a part of his ceiling area.
2(a) Where the statement submitted under sub-section (I) is accepted
by the Prescribed Authority, it shall proceed to detennine the
B surplus lancl accordingly.
(b) Where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement required to be
submitted under sub-section. (1) or submits an incomplete or
incorrect statement, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed in
the manner laid down under Section 10.
C (c) The provisions of this Act in respect of declaration, acquisition,
disposal and settlement of surplus land, shall mutatis mutandis,
apply to surplus land covered by this section.
The Ceiling Act came into force on 8.6.1973. As per the scheme of the
Act, the ceiling area is to be determined with reference to the date of the
D commencement of the Act. In determining the ceiling area of a person, this
date is relevant and no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold the aggregate
land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under the Act. Tenure-holder is
defined under Section 3(17) of the Act to mean "a person who is the holder
of a holding, but (except in Chapter III) does not include ....
E (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder;
(b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder."
Provision has been made in the Act for re-determination of the ceiling
area in case there is any future acquisition by the tenure-holder. The future
F acquisition can be in different forms and Section 2_9 of the Ceiling Act further
provides that if any land has come to be held by a tenure-holqer pursuant
to a decree or order of any Court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or
by prescription in consequences of adverse possession, the tenure-holder
has to file a further declaration ifthe aggregate land held by him exceeds the
ceiling area applicable to him. So also, if there is any change in the character
G of the land, such as, if any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land, then also
he has to file fresh declaration .as it would affect the aggregate ceiling area
prescribed under the law. The Act envisages that no tenure-holder shall be
allowed to be in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area at any point
of time. If there is any further acquisition, inclusive of that acquisition, the
H total area shall not exceed the maximum ceiling area prescribed under the Act.
VINOD KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER [BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 787
The definition of 'holding' given under Section 3(9) of the Act says that the A
'holding' means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidar, sirdar,
asami of gaon Sabha or asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U.P. Tenancy
Act but it does not include a sub-tenant or a Government lessee, or a sub-
lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of sub-lease is co-extensive
with the period of the lease. B
The question of interpretation of the tenn 'holding' under the Z.A. Act
came up for consideration before this Court in Bhudan Singh and Anr. v. Nabi
Bux and Anr., [1969] 2 SCC 481. In that case, the respondents were Ryots
under the appellants and the father of the respondents had a small building C
in a property obtained from the appellants. After the death of the father of
the respondents, they put up some buildings on that site for residential
purposes. During the communal disturbances in 1947, the respondents left the
village and came back in 1949 when the conditions improved. After coming
back, they found that the appellants had occupied that suit property after
putting up a cow-shed on the site in which their residential buildings stood. D
The appellants refused to deliver possession of the suit property and the
respondents instituted a suit for possession of the same on January 9, 1951.
On January 26, 1951, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act,
1950 came into force wherein it was prescribed that, on the commencement
of the Act, all Estat~s shall vest in the State. The respondents contended that
they were lawfully holding the building and the site till 1947 and they never E
gave up the possession of the buildings voluntarily and that in law they
continued to be in possession of the building. The appellants' entry in the
suit was an unlawful act. While interpretating the word 'hold', it was held that
the scheme of the Act is to abolish all estates and vest the property in the
State, but at the same time certain rights were conferred on persons in F
possession of lands or buildings. It is reasonable to assume that the persons
who were within the contemplation of the Act, are those who were in
possession of lands or buildings on the basis of some legal title. It was further
held : "Bearing in mind the purpose with which the legislation was enacted,
the scheme of the Act and the language in Section 9, we are of the opinion G
that the world 'held' in Section 9 means "lawfully held".
In State of U.P. v. District Judge and Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 496, a person
executed an agreement for sale of certain properties. He contended that the
property covered by this agreement for sale is to be excluded from his
holding. According to him, he had already parted possession of the property H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SlJP. 1 S.C.R.
A in favour of the person who executed this agreement. His plea lvas rejected
by this Court and it was held that a conjoint reading of Sections 5( I), 3(17)
and 3(9) clearly indicates that if a person holds the land as bhumidar, sirdar
or asami, amongst others, as laid down by the said provision, then such land
will be liable to be included in computing ceiling of his holding under Section
B 5(1). This Court observed thus:
"It is difficult to appreciate how the term "holding held by a tenure-
holder" should be confined only to such lands which are possessed
by him as owner and would exclude such lands which are owned by
him but which are not in his physical possession. Section 5(1) nowhere
contemplates that the lands must also be physically possessed by him
c before he could be said to have held such lands even though he was
the full owner thereof." .
It was held in case of agreement of sale that no title l>asses from the
transferor of possession to the transferee thereof and such an agreement
D itself creates no interest in land and unless there was a registered document
of sale in favour of the proposed transferee, the title of the lands would not
get divested from the vendor and would remain in his ownership and therefore,
it formed part and parcel of his holding.
In the instant case; the predecessor-in-interests of R3, R4 and R5 had
E executed a lease deed in favour of DCM in respect of entire 375 bighas of
land in 1936. DCM claimed 'Adhiwasi' right and the predecessor-in-interest
of these respondents claimed 'Bhumidari' right over this property. After
prolonged litigation, the High Court decided on 23.9.1987 that the predecessors-
in-interest ofR3, R4 and R5 had got 'Bhumidari' right over 142/17/2'h. bighas
of land and for the rest of the land, DCM was declared to have 'Adhiwasi'
F and 'Sirdar' rights. This decision of the High Court was challenged by
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and ultimately this Court held on- 23.11.1989 that
they were entitled to have further right over 72 bighas more of the disputed
land. Excluding 8/7/0 bighas of land in possession of allottees, this Court
directed that 64 bighas of land should be put in possession of Respondent
G Nos. 3, 4 and 5. This Court also directed for re~determination of the surplus
land of these respondents. The rights of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 over
64 bighas of land were crystallized only after the decision of this Court. Till
such time, these respondents had been claiming right over the property of 64
bighas of land'but the State was opposing their plea. It is also pertinent to
note that the State all along contended that this was the property having
H
VINOD KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER [BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 789
'Adhiwasi' right for the DCM. It is also important to note that DCM was held. A
to be holding this land including the 64 bighas of land and excess area was
taken away from them under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Only by virtue
of the Judgment dated 23.11.1989, Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 acquired right
over this property. Therefore, the question for consideration is, whether the
decision of thjs_ Court dated 23 .l l.1989 could be construed as a decree or '
order by which the tenure-holders, namely, Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 · B
acquired right over this property.
The plea of the appellants is that, right from the beginning, these
respondents were claiming right over this property and therefore, it must be
held that they were holding this land. Admittedly, these respondents were not C
in possession of this land. They got right to possession of this land by virtue
of the Judgment of this Court dated 23.11.1989. It is only thereafter it can be .
said that the tenure-holder began to 'hold' the land. As pointed out by the ,
High Court, the land-holders became tenure-holders of the land of 64 bighas
only on and from 23.11.1989 on which date they got title coupled with the
right to get possession by virtue of the order of this Court. Till such time, 'D
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 of the Act, the re-determination of the ceiling area is to be done with
reference to the date of the Judgment of this Court, i.e. 23.11.1989. We find
no reason to disagree with the decision of the Division Bench in this regard. ,E
The appeal is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. The other sets
of appeals are filed by Meerut Development Authority who had been allotted
this land by the State for development. As the land comes within the reiling '
area, the same will have to be returned to the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. '
The High Court has passed appropriate orders and we do not find any reason
to interfere with the same. ,F
The appeals filed by the allottees of land are also without any merits.
Their allotments were cancelled for various reasons. They were not entitled
to get allotment of these lands and the reasons are elaborately given in the
Judgment of the Division Bench. Some of the allottees were employed and
they did not come within the preferential category. G
All the appeals are without any merits and they are dismissed.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land ceiling"Sign in to search