Hardev Singh vs Prescribed Authority Kashipur

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2295 OF 2010

HARDEV SINGH …APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY,

KASHIPUR & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2296 OF 2010

JAMALUDDIN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated

20.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter

referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing the two Writ Petitions based on identical

facts raising common questions of law, filed by the appellants herein. Writ

1

petitions arose out of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling

on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1960’).

Facts

2. The factual matrix of two Civil Appeals being identical, reference is

being made to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2010 which are as under:-

The Secretary of State for India executed a lease deed dated 25.08.1920

under the Government Grants Act, 1895 (Act No. 15 of 1895) in favour of one

Lala Khushi Ram. On demise of Lala Khushi Ram, the lease hold rights were

inhereted by ‘Harikishan Lal’, Respondent No. 2 herein, as a successor. He

executed a registered sub-lease for agricultural purposes of an area measuring

2.49 acres in favour of the Appellants herein.

3. The Prescribed Authority, Kashipur (Respodent No.1 herein),

issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 to Respondent No.

2 herein, the Government Lessee, proposing to declare certain area of

land held by him as surplus.

4. Vide order dated 28.07.1978, respondent no.1 declared the land

measuring 2 Bigha 16 Biswa of Khasra No. 254, 1 Bigha 11 Biswa of

Khasra No. 255, 8 Bigha 16 Biswa of Khasra No. 256 and 2 Bigha 16

Biswa of Khasra No. 257, total admeasuring 15 Bigha, 16 Biswa as

surplus land in the hands of the Government Lessee. The land declared

2

surplus included the land sub-let to the appellant by Respondent No. 2,

the Government Lessee.

5. On attaining knowledge of the fact that the land sub-let to him was

included in the land declared surplus in the hands of Government Lessee,

the appellant made an application under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960,

which came to be dismissed by Respondent No.1 on the ground that the

appellant has no locus to maintain the said application. The appellant

challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 9048 of 1979 which was

allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to

decide the objections filed by the appellant under Section 11(2) of the Act

of 1960.

6. After remand, the Prescribed Authority again dismissed the

application vide order dated 12.04.1982 mainly on following two grounds

:-

(i) Possession of the appellant over the land in question is not

reflected in the revenue records.

(ii) The conditions postulated in Clause 9 of the lease deed for

transfer of land or portion thereof by the Government Lessee were

not followed before creating a sub-lease in favour of appellant.

3

7. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant by way of Ceiling

Appeal before the Additional District Judge, which also came to be dismissed

vide order dated 27. 08. 1984. Consequently, the appellant approached the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.

14911/1984.

8. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad, State of Uttaranchal came into existence and since the

land in question fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the newly created High

Court for Uttaranchal, the Writ Petition came to be transferred there and

eventually got dismissed for want of prosecution. Restoration application made

by the appellant for recall of the order too was dismissed and the appellant

approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which came to be

allowed and the Writ Petition was restored to its original number.

9. Vide Common impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2008, the High

Court dismissed the writ petitions.

10. The High Court in the impugned common order though observed that the

appellants herein being sub-lessees would be tenure holder as per sub-Section

9(3) of the Ceiling Act but refused to extend the benefit to the appellant in view

of violation of the conditions specified by Clause 9 of the Lease Deed.

4

11. We have heard Shri S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants

and Shri Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent-State of

Uttarakhand.

Contentions made on behalf of the appellant

12. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the definition of the term

‘tenure holder' as contained in Section 3(17) of the Ceiling Act and the definition

of ‘Holding’ contained in Section 3(9) of the said Act contends that the appellant

would attain the status of a ‘tenure holder’ within the meaning of Section 3(17)

of the Ceiling Act, and having acquired the status of independent tenure holder

is entitled for independent assessment of ceiling area and the land falling in his

tenure cannot be clubbed with holding in the hands of Respondent No. 2, the

Government lessee.

13. It was further submitted that the two fold prohibitory conditions contained

in Clause 9 of the lease deed, namely, (i) the lessee agrees in the event of his

transferring the lease land otherwise than by inheritance would either pay to the

Secretary of State 25 % of the price realised by him, or (ii) relinquish to the

Secretary of State 1/4th of the area proposed to be transferred are not applicable

to sub-leases made by the Government Lessee, when sub-letting the land in

ordinary course of agriculture as mentioned in Clause 9 itself. Referring to the

sub-lease, it is contended that sub-lease was for agricultural purposes and for the

cause of growing more food campaign and the High Court has patently erred in

holding the sub-lease as void on the ground of non-compliance of conditions

5

enumerated in the first part of Clause 9 of the lease deed ignoring the later part

postulating an exemption from the twin conditions for sub-lease made for

agriculture purposes.

Contentions made on behlaf of the Respondent

14. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case of the

appellant having acquired the rights of independent tenure holder is based

entirely on the definitions of ‘tenure holder’ and ‘holding’ under Sections 3(17)

and 3(9) of the Ceiling Act, without taking into consideration the provisions of

Section 5 of the Ceiling Act which is the charging section. It is further

submitted that definitions being relied upon by the counsel for the appellant

cannot be viewed in isolation and are to be read in consonance with Section 5 of

the Ceiling Act which is the charging section.

15. He further submitted that Section 5 of the Ceiling Act postulates that for

determination of ceiling area, there exists a presumption contained in

Explanation (I) that all land held by a tenure holder would also include land

ostensibly held in the name of any other person. He points out that Explanation

(II) clearly states that unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the

prescribed authority, it is presumed that the first mentioned person continues to

hold the land ostensibly in the name of any other person. Thus, burden of proof

to disprove this presumption lies on the appellants to establish the claim that

6

they are independent tenure holders. The appellants have failed to discharge the

said burden and thus, their claim has rightly been negated.

16. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 further submitted that Clause 9

of lease deed since specifically excludes sub-leases made in the ordinary course

of agriculture, which clearly implies that independent tenure rights cannot be

created by sub-leases made in ordinary course of agriculture by the Government

Lessee. Admittedly, since the appellants are sub-lessees under a sub-lease made

for agricultural purposes and, therefore, by implication he is excluded from

acquiring any rights as independent tenure holder.

Issues Involved

17. Having perused the relevant facts and records and on an analysis of rival

contentions, the following issues arise for our consideration:-

(i) Whether the appellants who are sub-lessees, by

implication acquire the status of tenure holder in view of the

definitions of ‘holding’ contained in Section 3(9) of the Ceiling

Act and the ‘tenure holder’ in Section 3(17) of the Act?

(ii) Whether the Appellants being sub-lessee of the original

Government Lessee are merely ostensible tenure holders of the

land, while the Government lessees continued to be the original

7

holders i.e., the land in question is merely held by the Appellants

on behalf of the original lessees?

Our Analysis

18. 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.

19. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer the definitions of

‘holding’ and ‘tenue holder’ as contained in Sections 3(9) and 3(17) and Section

5 of the Ceiling Act, which read as under :-

“ Section 3 (9) :-

(9) "holding" means the land or lands held by a person as a

bhumidhar, 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 a sub-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 3 (17) :-

"Tenure-Holder" means a person who is the holder of a holding

but [except in Chapter III] does not include -

(a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder;

 (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder;

8

Section 5 :- Imposition of Ceiling. - (1) [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 through-out Uttar

Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to

him.

[Explanation I. - In determining the ceiling area applicable to

a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether

in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other

person, shall be taken into account.

Explanation II. - [If on or before January 24,1971, 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 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 second mentioned

person.]

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1), shall apply to land held by the

following classes of persons namely -

(a) the Central Government, the State Government or any

Local Authority or a Government Company or a Corporation;

 (b) a University;

 (c) [an intermediate or degree college imparting education in

agriculture or a post-graduate college;];

(d) a banking company or a co-operative bank or a cooperative land development bank;

(e) the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the U.P.

Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952.

(3) [Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and

(7)] the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be -

(a) in the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more

than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including

land held by other members of his family) plus two additional

hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which

together with the land held by him aggregates to two hectares,

9

for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves

tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated

land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional

land;

(b) in the case of a tenure-holder having family of more than

five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land

held by other members of his family), besides, each of the

members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are

not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two

hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated

land or such additional land which together with the land held

by such adult son aggregates to two hectares, subject to a

maximum of six hectares of such additional land;

Explanation. - The expression 'adult son' in clauses (a) and

(b) includes an adult son who is dead and has left surviving

behind him minor sons or minor daughters (other than

married daughters) who are not themselves tenure-holders or

who hold land less than two hectares of irrigated land;

(c) [x x x]

(d) [x x x]

(e) in the case of any other tenure-holder, 7.30 hectares of

irrigated land;

Explanation. - Any transfer or partition of land which is liable

to be ignored under sub-sections (6) and (7) shall be ignored

also -

(f) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a

tenure-holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning

of [clause (a) or clause (b)];

(g) for purposes of service of notice under Section 9.

(4) Where any holding is held by a firm or co-operative society

or association of persons (whether incorporated or not, but

not including a public company), its members (whether called

partners, share-holders or by any other name) shall, for

purposes of this Act, be deemed to hold that holding in

proportion to their respective shares in that firm, co-operative

society or other society or association of persons :

[Provided that where a person immediately before his

admission to the firm, co-operative society, or other society or

association of persons, held no land or an area of land less

10

than the area proportionate to his aforesaid share then he

shall be deemed to hold no share, or as the case may be, only

the lesser area in that holding, and the entire or the remaining

area of the holding, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be

held by the remaining members in proportion to their

respective shares in the firm, co-operative society or other

society or association of persons.]

(5) In respect of any holding held by any private trust, -

(a) where the shares of its beneficiaries in the income from

such trust are known or determinable, the beneficiaries shall,

for purposes of this Act, be deemed to have the shares in that

holding in the same proportions as their respective shares in

the income from such trust,

(b) in any other case, it shall be governed by [clause (e)] of

subsection (3).

(6) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenureholder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day

of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been

declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and not

taken into account;

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to -

(a) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government)

referred to in sub-section (2);

(b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed

authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration

and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami

transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenureholder or other members of his family.

[Explanation I. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the

expression transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of

January, 1971, includes -]

[(a) a declaration of a person as a co-tenure-holder made

after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971 in a suit or

proceeding irrespective of whether such suit or proceeding

was pending on or was instituted after the twenty-fourth day of

January, 1971];

11

(b) any admission, acknowledgment, relinquishment or

declaation in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any

other deed or instrument or in any other manner.

Explanation II. - The burden of proving that a case falls within

clause (b) of the proviso shall rest with the party claiming its

benefit.

(7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenureholder, any partition of land made after the twenty-fourth day

of January, 1971, which but for the partition would have been

declared surplus land under this Act shall be ignored and not

taken into account;

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to -

(a) [x x x]

(b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding

pending on the said date :Provided further that

notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding proviso

the prescribed authority, if it is of opinion that by collusion

between the tenure-holder and any other party to the partition,

such other party has been given a share which he was not

entitled to, or a larger share than he was entitled to may

ignore such partition.

[Explanation I. - If a suit is instituted after the said date for

declaration that a partition of land has taken place on or

before the said date, then such declaration shall be ignored

and not be taken into account, and it shall be deemed that no

partition has taken place on or before the said date.]

Explanation II. - The burden of proving that a case falls within

the first proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit.

[(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (6)

and (7), no tenure-holder shall transfer any land held by him

during the continuance of proceedings for determination of

surplus land in relation to such tenure-holder and every

transfer made in contravention of this sub-section shall be

void.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section,

proceedings for determination of surplus land shall be deemed

to have commenced on the date of publication of notice under

sub-section (2) of Section 9 and shall be deemed to have

concluded on the date when an order in relation to such

12

tenure-holder is passed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 or

under sub-section (1) of Section 12, or as the case may be,

under Section 13.]”

20. Appellants herein have contended that since they are the holder of a

‘holding’ by implication become ‘tenure holder’ as per combined reading of

Sections 3(9) and 3(17) of the Act.

21. 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.

22. 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 has

been made inapplicable in case of sub-leases made by the lessee while subletting the land in the ordinary course of agriculture. For a ready reference, the

provisions of Clause 9 of the grant are reproduced hereunder :-

“9. The lessee agrees in the event of his transferring other

than by inheritance the leased land or portion thereof to either

pay to the Secretary of State twenty five percent of the price

realized by him by the transfer of lease rights or to relinquish

to the Secretary of State 1/4 of the area proposed to be

transferred.

The Deputy Commissioner shall have the power to choose

either alternative. Any further transfer by the lessee or his

transferee shall be subject to a similar payment of 1/4 of the

cost price or a similar relinquishment of 1/4 of the land

proposed to be transferred.

13

This clause shall not apply to leases made by the lessee when

subletting land in the ordinary course of agriculture.”

23. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the grantee was

only allowed to transfer the land on fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in

the said clause.

24. Furthermore, even the terms of the sub-lease specifically provided that if

the sub-lessee intends 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. Relevant

Clause 5 of the sub-lease in this regard reads as under :-

“That if the sub lessee intends to purchase the full rights of the

lessee which he has obtained according to the indenture made

by the lessee’s predecessor-in-interest late Lala Khushi Ram

and the then Secretary of State for India in Council in

conformity with clause nine of that indenture for the whole

area of 2.49 acres he shall be entitled to do so within five

years from 28.6.1966 on paying at the rate of Rs.150/- (Rupees

one hundred and fifty only) per acre to the lessee. The sub

lessee shall be liable to pay the annual rent of that current

year during which he makes such a transaction during the

period of five years from the commencement of this agreement

as mentioned above.”

25. Thus, a conjoint reading of Clause 5 of the sub-lease and Clause 9 of the

Government lease clearly stipulates that acquisition of rights, if any, as

14

independent tenure holder can only be by following the stipulations as

contained in Clause 5 of the sub-lease and Clause 9 of the Government lease,

which, in the present case, admittedly, has not been followed.

26. 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.

27. 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. The terms and conditions of grant will have an overriding effect

15

in view of amendment of Sections 2 & 3 of the Government Grants Act in its

application to State of U.P. inserted by U.P. Amendment Act 13 of 1960 with

retrospective effect. Section 2 of the Government Grants Act as applicable in

State of U.P. reads as under :-

STATE AMENDMENTS

Uttar Pradesh:

“2 (1). Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to

Government Grants - Nothing contained in the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882, shall apply or be deemed ever to have

applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any

interest therein, heretofore made or hereafter to be made, by

or on behalf of the government to or in favour of any person

whomsoever; and every such grant and transfer shall be

construed and take effect as if the said Act had not been

passed.

(2). UP Tenancy Act, 1939, and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 not

to affect certain leases made by or on behalf of the

Government - Nothing contained in the UP Tenancy Act,

1939, or the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, shall affect, or be

deemed to have ever affected any rights, created, conferred

or granted, whether before or after the date of the passing of

the Government Grants (UP Amendment) Act 1960, by leases

of land by, or on behalf of, the Government in favour of any

person; and every such creation, conferment or grant shall

be construed and take effect notwithstanding anything to the

contrary contained in the UP Tenancy Act, 1939, or the Agra

Tenancy Act, 1926.

(3) Certain leases made by or on behalf of the Government

to take effect according to their tenor - All provisions,

restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any such

creation, conferment or grant referred to in Section 2, shall

be valid and take effect according to their tenor; any decree

or direction of a court of law or any rule of law, statute or

enactment of the Legislature, to the contrary

-notwithstanding:

16

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent, or be

deemed ever to have prevented, the effect of any enactment

relating to the acquisition of property, land reforms or the

imposition of ceiling on agricultural lands.”

28. The aforesaid provisions as applicable in the State of U.P. with

retrospective effect clearly provides that the rights and obligations between the

Government as lessor of the land and the grantee as lessee of the land are to be

regulated by the terms of the grant. The terms of the grant clearly postulates

transfer of the land by Government Lessee subject to fulfillment of certain

conditions. A sub-lease created for agricultural purposes having been exempted

from operation of the conditions and no vested right shall be created in sublease and he cannot claim any rights contrary to the terms of the grant.

29. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of

Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously Known As M/S. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh)

Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. And Ors.1

, and

has been answered as under :-

“33. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending

Section 2 of the Govt. Grants Act, 1895 by UP Amendment

Act of 1960 makes it clear that the State Legislature

intended to apply only the provisions of Land Reforms Act

and Ceiling Act to the lands held by persons under the Govt.

Grants Act. The statements of objects and reasons read

thus:-

"Provisions of Section 2 of the Government Grants (UP

Amendment) Act, 1959, have the effect of saving a grant of

an agricultural lease by or on behalf of the Government

1. (2004) 4 SCC 281

17

from the operation not only on the Acts mentioned therein,

but also of any other law, including the law for imposition of

ceiling on land holdings, that might be made in future. There

is also an apprehension that the result of the wordings of

section 2 may be to undo the vesting of estates of

government grantees under section 4 of the UP Zamindari

Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. With a view,

therefore, to remove any such apprehension and to put the

UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Bill, 1959, when

enacted, beyond the purview of the Government Grants Acts,

this Bill is being introduced. Vide UP Gazette Extraordinary,

dated February 3, 1960.”

34. Land Reforms Act, 1950 being saved by sub-section (3)

of Section 2 of Govt. Grants Act is applicable to the govt.

grants. Under Section 18 (l)(c) of Land Reforms Act, a govt.

grantee holding land rent-free was allowed to retain

possession of the land as 'Bhumidhar.' Section 18 of the

Land Reforms Act with clause (c) in sub-section (1) reads

thus:-

"Section 18. Settlement of certain lands with intermediaries

or cultivators as Bhumidar - (1) Subject to the provisions of

Sections 10,15,16 and 17, all lands - (a) in possession of or

held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir,

khudkasht or an intermediary" grove. (b) held as a grove by,

or in the personal cultivation of a permanent lessee in

Avadh. (c) held by a fixed-rate tenant or a rent-free grantee

as such, or (d) held as such by - i) an occupancy tenant,

Possessing the ii) a hereditary tenant, right to transfer iii) a

tenant on Patta the holding by sale Dawami or Istamrari

referred to in Section 17, (e) held by a grove holder.

On the dale immediately preceding the date of vesting shall

be deemed to be sell led by the State Government with such

intermediary, [lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder] as

the case may be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this

Act. be entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar

thereof. "

35. As seen above, proviso below sub-section (3) of Section

2, of Govt. Grants (UP Amendment) Act makes applicable

Ceiling Act to the land held by a grantee under the Govt.

Grant. It has already been noted that a 'Govt. Grantee' or a

''lessee' is covered within the definition of 'tenure holder'

18

given in under clause (17) read with clause (9) of Ceiling

Act and the definition of 'person' in Section 4 (33) of the UP

General Clauses Act. Thus conjointly reading the provisions

of the Ceiling Act and the Land Reforms Act, the grantee of

land from the government is a holder of land in the status of

a Bhumidhar and the land can be subjected to ceiling limit.

To the lands held by the company, which is grantee of the

Govt., the provisions of Ceiling Act would be attracted. Such

grantee being a lessee from Government has no right to

transfer the land without permission of the Government. It

can grant leases or sub-leases under the UP Tenancy Act but

the lessees/sub-lessees can claim no rights contrary to the

terms of the grant. All the transfers made by the Company or

Farm by sale or lease contrary to the terms of the Govt.

Grant create no independent rights in favour of the said

transferees or lessees. The claims of transferees and lessees

based on the provisions of UP Tenancy Act were, therefore,

rightly negatived by the ceiling authority and the High

Court.

30. We may also reproduce the observations made in paragraph 32 of the

Escorts Farms Ltd. (Supra) :-

“32. No action of the revenue authorities can, therefore,

estop the ceiling authorities from ignoring the claims of

tenancy rights on the land set up by the lessees/sub-lessees.

The rights between the government and the grantee are

strictly to be regulated by the terms of the grant and in

accordance with the Govt. Grants (UP Amendment) Act,

1960. The entries in revenue records and recognition of any

tenancy rights of the lessee and/or sub-lessee as hereditary

tenant, Sirdars or Bhumidhars under the UP Tenancy Act

can have no adverse legal effect on the Govt. Grant which

has an overriding effect under the Govt. Grants Act. No

estoppel can operate against the overriding statute so as to

bind the ceiling authorities to accept the tenancy rights of

the lessees/sub-lessees as indefeasible in application of

Ceiling Act to the lands in question.”

19

31. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the provisions of Ceiling

Act would be applicable in case of grantee of Government under a lease

agreement. The grantee being a lessee from the Government has no right to

transfer the land without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in Clause 9 of lease

deed. The terms of the lease deed though provide for sub-lease for agricultural

purposes but sub-lessees can claim no independent rights as a tenure holder.

32. Thus, the appellant being a sub-lessee continues to be an ostensible

holder of land and the government grantee, the Respondent No. 2, to be the real

holder and the ceiling authorities as well as the High Court have rightly

dismissed the claim of the appellant.

33. In the result appeals fail and are dismissed. However, in the facts and

circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.

.................................J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER)

...............................J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

NEW DELHI;

10th JANUARY, 2022

20

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले