AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. v.

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS May 4, 1973 [A. N. RAY, C. ]. ANDS. N. DWIVEDI, J.j

Under Pradesh Consotida1io11 of Holdings Act. 1953. Ss. 5(2), 49, 48A-U11cir l'rudesh J111po!1dtio11 of Ceiling on Ltznd Holdi11~s Act, 1960, Ss. 10, 12-0bjections to State111ent sef\'(•d under s. 10 of Ceiling Act and dispute as lo plots to be rt:uined i11 the ceiling area-l11itiation of Coruolidation proceedi1'gs 1u1de1 tht Consolidatio11 Act-Proceedings under Ceiling Act if "in respect o/ d1..·.:laratio11 of rights or intt•rest in any land lying in the area" within the 111t'alling 1. 5 (2) and tllerefort should abate. Sf'ction 5 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act enacts, inter alia, th al upon the issuance of notification under sub-section (2) of 13ection 4 •·every suil or proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area'' "shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or an'.hority before whom such suit or- pro:eeding is pending, stand abatt"d,''

The appellant is the tenure holder of large area of land. Since the appellant did not file statement of its holding as required by s. 9 of the U.P. Jmpmition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. the Prescribed Authorily under the Act served on it statement prepared under section 10 in respect Of its holdinJ1$. The appellant filed objections to the statement indicating the plots it wanted. to retain as its ceiling area. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the appellant's choice wholly. While the proceedings were pending before the authorities under the Ceiling Act consolidation proceedings were initiated in respect of appellant's lands under the Consolidation Act. large number of persons filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the consolidation autho~ rities. The appellants thereupon filed applications before the authorities under the Ceiling Act for stay of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. These were rejected. In writ petition the High Court accepted the . contention of the appellant that the authorities under the Ceiling Act should have accepted entirely the choice of plots which iy wanted to retain as the ceiling area and directed the authorities -to decide the matter afresh. Jb.e High Court also directed that the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities would remain stayed during the continuance. of the proceedin~ under the Ceiling Act. On the question whether tile proceedings under the Ceiling Act are "in respect of declaration of rights or iaterest in any land lying in the area,'' within the meaning of that expression in s. 5(2),

HELD : Allowing the appeal, that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were abated under s. S ( 2) of the Consolidation Act.

(i) The Prescribed Authority acting under Ss. 10(2) and 12 of the Ceiling Act is an "authority" within the meaning of that expression in s. S (2). [2S6E-F]

(ii) Section 5(2) will not ripply where tenure holder voluntarily files :i statement of his holdings under section 9 ar.d there is no dispute about the right or interest in the boldin~. or when the tenure holder accepts the statements sent to him by the Pie1!cribed Authority under •. 10. But where the tenure holder does not voluntarily file statement under s. 9 and claims that he is-not the tenure holder of ·ai1 or some of the plots included in the Jtatement prepared under s. 10 there ensues dispute about right or interest in land and there -is adverseary proceedings between him and the government. The prescribed arithoritv decides under s. 12 whether the tenure holder has any right or interest in all or some of the plots, artd those plots in which be has no right or interest are excluded from the statement served on him under s. 10. This is the very question in issue before the Consolidation .Authority under the Consolidation Act. If the clai11ls made to the a1>pellant's plots nending under the Consolidation Act are allowed large area of land included in the statement under s. 10 of the Ceilinst Act witf have to be excluded from consi-deration by the prescribed Authority. Therefore, non~stay of procecdin_~ under the Ceiling Act would cause hardship to the appellant. A• '°"" as consolidalioa operations are closed the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may· be resumed. [2S6fij

(iii) The pUl'lJ()Se of the non obstante clause in s. 49 is to exclude the operation of any other overlapping Act. Section S (2) and 49 indicate clearly

[ 1974] 1 S.C.R.

that the proceedings in the instant case are to be abated under 11. 5(2). Further, the a•bS<;:nce of provision like s. 48A in relation to the jurisdiction of the Prescrib.:d Authority tinder· the Ceiling Act lends support to this inference. [258AJ

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction :

Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1971

Appeal by Certificate from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1970 Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1701 of 1964.

A. H. Khwaja in person for the appellant.

G. N. Dikshit, S. P. Singh, R. Bana and 0. P. Rana for the res-pondent.

The .T udgment of the Court was delivered by

DWIVEDI /. The appellant, the Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd., is the tenure-holder of large area _of land in two villages in the district of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Aithal Buzurg and Buk--kanpur. Some of its land have been declared as 'surplus land' under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling· Act). It went in appeal against the order declaring surplus land to the District Judge, but without success. Its writ petition has been partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. This appeal, by special leave, is directed .. against the latter part of the order of the High Court.

The scheme of the Ceiling Act is to allow tenure-holder to retain such of his plots as are assigned to him as his ceiling area and to acquire the remaining plots as surplus land. The ceiling area and the s11rplus land are determined by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority issues general notice calling upon all the tenure-holders of village to file state-ment in respect of their holdings. Under s. 9 tenure-holder files his statement in respect of all' his holdings as well as indicates the plot or plots which he would like to retain as his ceiling area. Where tenure·holder fails to file statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement under s. 9, section 10 enables the Prescribed Authority to prepare statement in regard to his holdings and serve it on him. As the appellant did not file statement under s. 9, statement prepar!!d under s. 10 was served on it. An objection was filed by it. The objection indicated the plots which it wanted to retain as its ceiling area. The Prescribed Authority did not accept its choice wholly. After the decision of the Prescribed Authority, it received C. H. Form V issued under tbe provisions of the U.P. Con-solidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Con-G solidation Act) with respect to the land situated in village Bukbnpnr. review application was then moved before the Prescribed Autho-rity on the ground of the pendency of consolidation operations in village Bukkanpur. The application was rejected on "September 15, 1962. While tbe appeal against the order of tne Prescribed Authority was pending, village Aithal Buzurg was also brought under conso!i-'dation operations. The appellant received C.H. Form V issned under the Consolidation Act with respect to the plots situate in village Aithal Buzurg. It made an application to the appellate autho-rity informing him of the initiation of consolidation operations in the

two villages. It is said that the appellate authority ~ook no notice of the application and decided the appeal on mcnts. The appellate authority also did not accept wholly the - choice of the appellant in regard to the plots to be retained as its ceiling area. In the writ petition before the High Court, the appellant pressed two points for consideration. First the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority should have 'accepted entirely the choice of the plots which it wanted to retain as the ceiling area; second, ~e two authorities should have stayed the proceedings uader the Cetlmg Act during consolidation -operations in the said villages. The firs: con-tenti~ was accepted by the High Court; the second was re1ected. The ffigh C..ourt quashed the order of the appellate authority ~nd directed it to decide the appeal in the light of its judgment. The High Court also directed that the proceeding• before the c?nsolidation authorities would remain stayed until the appeal was decided by the appellate authority under the Ceiling Act. This appeal is confined to the second point.

~ook no the ~e two The firs: con-re1ected. ~nd High c?nsolidation

The High Court has rejected the second argument for two reasons: One, there was no merit in the argument; second, the appellant had not raised the argument before· the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority.

it now transpires that while the petition was pending in the High Court, the Consolidation Officer and the Asstt. Settlement Officer had adjudicated upon the objections of large number of persons claim-ing interest in the plots of the appellant. Their objections were dis-missed. They filed revisions against those orders. 111e revL•ions were pending when the petition was heard by the High Court. Arter the decision of the High Court, the State Government has issued notification under s. 6 of the Consolidation Act cancelling the notifi-c11tion bringing the aforesaid villages under consolidation operations. But the High Coilrt has admitted writ petition of the appellant n1"tlnst this notification and has stayed the operation of the notifica-tion. ·

The second reason assigned by the High Court for rejecting the second argument of the appellant may be disposed of first. It is clear from the facts already stated that the appellant did raise at the proper time before the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority the argument that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act shoul~ remain stayed during consolidation operations. Accordingly, we will now proceed to examine the correctness of the first reason assigned by the High Court. Its plea before the appellate authority before ,a,nd after the dC?ision in th~ \\Tit petition, in effect was this: _ !.\s revisions were pendmg under the Consolidation Act, its interest m the plots was under eland. It might or might not be held to be _ the tenure-holder of all or some of the plots. Jf the proceedings ~nd~r the Ceiling Act were not stayed, it would lose surplus land, and it 1n1ght also Jose some of the plots included in its ceiling area as r~sult of an adverse decision in the revisions nnder the Consolida-!IOn. Act. In plain language, its argument, in the alternative, was that it m1gl1t not be the tenure-holder of all the plots.

Consolidation proceedings are started in village by virtue of notification issued by the State Government under s. 4 of the Con· solidation Act. Seciion 5 specifies the consequences which follow the issuance of notification under s. 4. Sub-section ( 1) of s. 5 states certain consequences with which we are not concerned in this appeal. Sub-section (2) is material for our purpose, and it material· ly reads as follows:

"Upoa such publication of the notification under sub· section (2) of section 4 the follo\\ing further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates:

(a) every proceeding for the correction of records and

every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the 3"ea, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which pro-ceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending b~fore any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being pa~scd in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand 'abated.

Provided further that on the issuance of notification under sul>-scction ( 1 ) of section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part . . . . . . shall stand vacated.

(b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the

rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appro-priate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder."

The Prescribed Authority acting under s. 10(2) and 12 of the Ceiling Act is an authority within the meaning of that expression· in s. 5(2). The proceeding before him will be proceedin11 within the meaning of the said word in s. 5(2). But the proceeding be-fore him is nol proceeding for the correctness of records or for 'de-claration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which pro-ceedings can or ought to be taken' under the Consolidation Act. So the limited question to be considered is whether the proceeding in the present case is on "in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area."

When tenure-holder voluntarily files statement of his holdings under s. 9, the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority is not of this kind, because the tenure-holder admits that the holdings are his. There is ordinarily no dispute about any right or interest in the holdings before the Prescribed Authority. Again, when the tenure-holder accepts the statement sent to him by the Prescribed Authority under s. 10, there is no dispute with respect to any right or interest in land. In these two instances section 5(2) will not apply. But where the tenur~-holder does not voluntarilv file statement under s 9 and disputes that he is not the tenure-holder .of all or some of the plots

included in the statement prepared under s. 10, there ensues disp~tc about right or interest in land. According to s. 32 of the Ce1lmg Act, the State Government is party to every proceeding .. so in such case there is an adversary proceeding before the Prcscnbed Auth-rity between him and the Government. The Prescribed. Author!tv will decide under s. 12 whether the tenure-holder has any nght or rntcrest in all or some of the plots. If the Prescribed Authority finds that he has no right or interest in alt or some of the plots, he will exclude those plots from the statement served on him under s. 10 and deter-mine the ceiling area and. surplus land without taking into account the excluded plots. This is the very question which is in issue before the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act. Under s. 10 of the Consolidation Act the Consolidation Officer is called l!pon to adjudicate upon various claims to the plots falling within the con-c solidation area. Take this particular case. Admittedly large num-ber of persons have filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the Consolidation Authorities. Their claims are pending consideration in revisions under s. 48 of the Consolidation Act. If their revisions arc allowed, large area of land included in the statement under s. 10 of the Ceiling Act will have to be excluded from consideration by the Prescribed Authority. It is therefore obvious \hat the non-stay of pro· ceedings under the Ceiling Act would cause great hardship to the appelbnt. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that all those claimants before the revising authority under the Consolidation Act can be impleaded as parties in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Assuming in arguendo that they can be so impleaded, the question still remains whether the proceedings under the Ceiling Act can go on while proceedings with respect to any right or interest in the plots of the appellant are simultaneously going on before the consolidation authorities. As soon as those claimants are impleqded in the proceed-ing under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act, the proceeding will more pointedly become proceeding "in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land" under s. 5 (2) of the Consolidation ActIt is true that the purposes of the two Acts are different. Under the Ceiling Act, the ceiling area and surplus land of tenure-holder are determined; under the Consolidation Act, the holdings of tenure-h0lder are consolidated. But neither purpose may in large number of cases be accomplished without first determining the right or interest of various claimants in the plots. So the crucial question for decision is as to whether the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act or the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act has got preemptive jurisdiction to determine rival rights and interests in the land of the appellant. We have already shown that the proceeding under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act is proceeding within the purview of s. 5 (2) of the Consolidation Act. Section 49 of the Consolidation Act materially provides :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time bein_g in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, fcir which notification has been issuect under sub· section (2) of s. 4 .... shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act .... "

Obviously the purpose of the non-obstante clause in s. 49 is to exclude the operation of any other overlapping Act. So the non-obstante clause would exclude the operation of the Ceiling Act while the Consolidation Act is in operation in particular area. Section 5 (2) and s. 49 indicate clearly that the proceedings in the instant case are to be abated under s. 5(2). Section 48A of the Consolida-tion Act expressly saves the jurisdiction of the Custodian of the Evacuee properties to decide claims to the plots of the evacuees during consolidation operations. The absence of like provision in relation to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the C.eiling Act lends support to our inference.

So the non-Section in the instant of the the

We do not think that the construction of s. 5(.2) should be in-fluenced by the argument that if the proceeding; under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act are abated, the appellant would retain lands in its hands permanently or for long time. As soon as the consolidation opera-tions are closed on the valid issue of notification under s. 6 or s. 52, the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may be resumed. In any event, it is plain from the language of ss. 5(2), 48A and 49 of the Consolidation Act that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot continue in the circumstances of this case as long as the consolidation operations are going on.

As in fresh petition the High Court has stayed the operation of the notification under s. 6 of the Consolidation Act, it is of no avail to the respondent in this appea!..

The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is allowed in toto,. The order of the District Judge, dated January 31, 1964, is quashed and the proceedings unde1; the Ceiling Act are abated under s. 5(2) of the Consolidation Act. The proceedings under the Ceiling Act may be resumed after the issue of notifica-tion under s. 52 or after the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the notification under s. 6. Jn the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.

S.ll.W.

Appeal allowed.