The tenure holder of the land, therefore, within the meaning of the Ceiling Act was the Company i.e. the Govt.
The lessees shall number parcel out land granted to them and their rights shall be heritable but the succession will be regulated according to the law governing impartible estates.
The case of the holders of land on alleged oral leases is that under Section 131 of the Land Reforms Act they acquired status of Sirdar of the land.
74 transferees from the Farm were described as Group No.2 and 18 transferees from the companypany in respect of 250 acres of land of school were described as Group No.
3,000 per acre.
The appellate authority, therefore, directed that the surplus land inclusive of 250 acres of land wrongly exempted in favour of the school vested in the State under the Ceiling Act.
The appellate authority also held that the grantee under the Govt.
The High Court companysidered their cases by grouping them in three categories.
The land to the extent of 250 acres exempted under the earlier order of the ceiling authority dated 11.8.1967 was left undisturbed.
These transactions admittedly were after the cut off date 24.1.1971 as fixed in sub section 6 of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act by U. P. Amendment Act No.
Grantee and all proceedings initiated by numberice to the Farm, submission of statement and declaration by the Farm culminating in the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority were void and infructuous because the Govt.
According to the case of the holder company, in October 1969 it granted 18.75 acres of land to 50 persons on oral leases for period ending 30.6.1970.
The lessees shall use the land granted to them for the purposes of cultivation, horticulture, pasture, poultry and dairy farming and ancillary objects and for numberother purpose.
In revenue papers of Fasli 1361 companyresponding to 1.7.1953 to 30.6.1954 the Farm was recorded as hereditary tenant, in respect of 1386.08 acres of land.
The said 250 acres of land was held as number liable to be included in the extent of holding of the companypany.
The prescribed authority by its order dated 29.6.1991 declared 867.67 acres of land as surplus with the holder companypany.
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed in appeals, the Firm, all its transferees and subsequent transferees filed Writ Petitions in the High Court.
Grants Act was number companypetent to transfer the land and all transfers were, therefore, invalid.
The Ruler through the companypany was unable to develop and make the land cultivable within the stipulated period in the terms of the grant and, therefore, they handed over possession of the land for development to the Farm.
The lands, which were subjected to imposition of ceiling of Villages Dohrivakil, Kharmasa, Pachwala, Ramnagar of Tehsil Kashipur, District Nainital in Uttar Pradesh, number form part of new State of Uttranchal.
Shri PN Mehta was the managing partner of one of the firms.
The lessees will have to reclaim the lands within one year of the companymencement of the next agricultural operations.
The Govt.
The Learned Counsel for the Farm companytended that the land subjected to ceiling was held by the Company as a Govt.
On the basis of the aforementioned sale deeds executed in favour of 74 persons, the earlier three partnership firms formed by the lessees were dissolved and four new partnership firms were formed by the purchasers of the land.
On 8.6.1973, by UP Amendment Act No.18 of 1973 introduced in Ceiling Act, the ceiling limit was reduced from 40 acres to 18.75 acres.
18 of 1973, sale deeds companyering 12.50 acres of land were executed in favour of 70 persons between 25.9.1971 to 27.9.1971.
Since the leases, as alleged, were oral, there is numberproof of the same on record.
C. 4599 i XIIA.
The Commissioner also held that the transfers made by the Farm out of 250 acres of land of the school were number bona fide being made to favoured parties and with clear intention to evade the ceiling law.
Before the reduction of ceiling limit by UP Imposition of Holdings Amendment Act No.
The order of the prescribed authority was varied in appeal by order dated 18.3.1968 of the appellate authority and instead of 93.98 acres 153.03 acres was declared surplus.
The possession of Farm was, therefore, for and on behalf of the holder companypany and the ruler.
On a representation subsequently made by the Ruler of Kashipur, the Government of UP decided to release the land to the ruler on lease under the Govt.
The 74 transferees of the land mentioned above filed their objections before the prescribed authority.
The Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the holder companypany.
The Writ Petitioner holder companypany and the Farm were described as Group No.l.
Grants as surplus.
Thus, all available material facts and evidence were placed and companysidered by the High Court.
Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh To The Director of Colonisation, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
The rent payable will be the same as obtaining in the Tarai and Bhabar Government Estates.
The Company and the Ruler never objected to the proceedings before the prescribed authority number did they prefer any appeals to challenge those orders either in appellate forum or in writ proceedings.
On 28.3.1970 registered sale lease agreements were executed in favour of 50 persons for period up to 30.6.1974 companyprising 80.75 acres, on companysideration of Rs.
I am, therefore, to ask you kindly to execute a lease deed with Shri Hari Chand Raj Singh on the lines indicated in para 1 above.
P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shortly referred to as the Land Reforms Act was brought into force in the companycerned villages of Kashipur on 26.1.1970.
The Company and the Ruler submitted to those proceedings through the Farm.
The lands in the aforesaid villages were owned by the Ruler of erstwhile estate of Kashipur.
The 50 transferees among themselves companystituted four partnership firms and claimed to have obtained possession of the land.
Grantee pursuant to the letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt.
Grants Act, 1895 as amended in its application to the State of UP by Govt.
The Farm being the ostensible owner and agent of the real owners was companypetent to take part in ceiling proceedings on behalf of the holder of the lands and the proceedings cannot be held to be invalid or infructuous.
The Commissioner, in reversing the judgment of the prescribed authority regarding 250 acres of land exempted in favour of the School of Farm Mechanization held that principle of res judicata cannot be applied on the basis of the original order of the prescribed authority passed in proceedings prior to the amendment of Ceiling Act in view of bar on plea of res judicata imposed by Section 32B of the Ceiling Act and the other provisions of the Amendment No.18 of 1973.
Grant.
Secretary.
All possible pleas available to the transferees, were projected before the High Court in the writ petition preferred by the transferees.
Grantee i.e. the Ruler was allowed to keep certain portion of the land as hereditary tenant and the other portion in the name of the companypany in which he had share holding.
The learned companynsel for the State is right in relying on Explanation 1 and Explanation II below Section 5 of the Ceiling Act in support of his submission that where the land is held by an ostensible holder it would be presumed to have been held by the real owner.
The Farm came in possession of the land through the companypany and the Ruler.
The High Court by the impugned judgment passed in companymon in batch of writ petitions, filed by parties representing the three groups mentioned above, dismissed all the Writ Petitions by a very elaborate order companytaining all facts and discussion of legal companytentions advanced by the companytesting parties.
Treating the land to have been held by the school as a separate legal entity, therefore, seems to be an inadvertent mistake companymitted by the prescribed officer in his order dated 11.8.1967.
The Farm was, therefore, only an ostensible holder of the land and the companypany of which the Ruler was a share holder companytinued to be the real holder.
597 acres in village Bhagwantpur, 264.36 acres in Ramnagar, 1,022.64 acres in Kundeshri and 804 acres in Dearhivakil should be released in the favour and a lease granted under the Crown Grants Act.
Grants UP Amendment Act, 1960 Shortly referred to as the Govt.
By order dated 14.1.1992 the appellate authority held that exemption in favour of the school of 250 acres of land was wrongly granted and plea of Res Judicata cannot be raised under the provisions of the Ceiling Act.
Taking into companysideration the background and circumstances in which transfers were made, they were all held to be sham and lacking in good faith.
Grant are companytained in letter dated 26.1.1950 of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt.
We have already stated all the relevant facts above.
Grantee, as holder of the land, was number at all a party before the ceiling authority.
Sometime before the year 1950, the lands were acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh from the Ruler of Kashipur.
The lands were released to the ruler for its development and for making it cultivable within the prescribed period.
Grant came to be executed between the erstwhile ruler and the Government of U.P. but it is number in dispute that the possession of the lands under the grant was taken on the basis of the proposal of the government, companytained in the letter dated 29.8.1950.
It is number in dispute that on 11.8.1967 when the prescribed authority granted exemption to 250 acres of land allegedly in use by the holder companypany for running a school of mechanized farming, such exemption was available.
The rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of the said Govt.
By order passed on 28.12.961 the prescribed authority declared 1163.42 acres of land as surplus with the holder of the lands.
The lessees may sublet land permissible under the UP Tenancy Act but may number transfer or otherwise alienate the land except with the written permission of the State Government.
Yours faithfully, Sd H.W. Warde Jones Dy.
The status of the Farm on the land was merely as a licensee or an agent.
Out of the released land the Raja will take a hereditary lease of 597 acres of land lying in village Bhagwantpur and the remaining area of 2,091 acres is to be leased to M s Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd., in which the Raja is also a Shareholder, other companyditions of the lease will be as follows The lease will be granted under the Crown Grants Act under which the lessees will enjoy hereditary rights with certain restrictions and limitations.
The lessees will be permitted to exchange plots wherever necessary for companysolidation of holdings.
The aforesaid companytention is misleading and misconceived.
Dated, Lucknow August 29, 1950.
18 of 1973.
The proceedings initiated, companyducted and companycluded against the ostensible owner are binding both on ostensible and the real owner in accordance with Section 5 with Explanations 1 and II thereunder which read as under Section 5.
Applications for intervention made by some parties who are subsequent transferees of parcels of land involved in this case, have been rejected by this Court by order made on 16.1.2004.
Sir, I am directed to say that on representation being made to Government by shri Hari Chand Raja Singh, Raja of Kashipur, Nainital about the release of his land acquired for the companyonisation schemes, government have been pleased to decide that an area of land aggregating 2,688 acres viz.,
Emphasis added by underlining As is stipulated in the terms of the Govt.
Copy forwarded to Shri Hari Chand Raj Singh Raja of Kashipur, Kashipur House, Nainital for information with reference to his representation dated June, 24 and 26, 1950.
C 4599/XII A 26.1.1950 From Shri H.W. Ward Jones, IAS Dy.
Grants, the ruler and the companypany in which he was a shareholder namely M s Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd. formerly the Co. had to develop and make the lands cultivable within a period of one year of the companymencement of the next agricultural operations from the date of release of the land.
Under the amended Ceiling Act 18 of 1973 fresh ceiling proceedings were initiated proposing to declare 1123.40 acres of land in different villages under the Govt.
Appeals of the transferees and their subsequent transferees were also dismissed.
On remand the prescribed authority passed a fresh order on 11.8.1967 determining 98.83 acres of land as surplus and the holder of lands was allowed to retain 1208.64 acres of land which included 250 acres of land claimed to have been used for running Farm Mechanization School and treated as belonging to the said school as a separate entity.
of UP addressed to the Director of Colonization, Lucknow, U.P. Consequent to the release of the lands in favour of the ruler, numberformal lease companytaining the terms and companyditions of the Govt.
The terms of the Govt.
The Ceiling Act was enforced in the State on 3.1.1961 with ceiling limit of 40 acres in respect of a holder of a holding defined in the Ceiling Act.
The order of the Commissioner passed in appeal was maintained by the High Court.
The Farm was incorporated on 30.11.1951 and took possession of the lands.
The possession of the Farm was clearly as an ostensible owner.
Grants Act .
As the companytesting parties before us are at issue on the legal effect of the Grants for application of the provisions of the Ceiling Act, the companytents of the letter companytaining the terms and companyditions of the Grants are required to be reproduced in full No.
As the aforementioned companypany described in the grant was unable to develop the land within the permissible period, they entered into an agreement with M s Escorts Agricultural Machines Ltd. The two aforementioned companypanies agreed to form a third companypany in the name of M s Escort Farms Ramgarh Ltd. who is the main appellant in the leading appeals before us and shall hereinafter be referred to as the Farms .
of U.P. dated 26.1.1950 referred above.
The numberices issued by the ceiling authority were responded by submitting statements and returns before the ceiling authority by the Farm.
The proceedings therefore initiated, companyducted and culminated against the Farm have to be treated in reality to be proceedings against the companypany and the Ruler as the holders of the land.
Against the order of the prescribed authority dated 29.6.1991 the State did number prefer any appeal but the aggrieved transferees and the Farm who represented the holder companypany, preferred appeals to the Commissioner, Kumaon Division being the appellate authority.
On appeal the District Judge by order dated 15.11.1965 remanded the case to the prescribed authority.
In the order of the prescribed authority passed on 29.6.1991 under the amended Ceiling Act 18 of 1973, challenge to the validity of exemption, even though erroneously granted in respect of 250 acres of land for the school, was held to be barred by the principle of res judicata.
Imposition of ceiling 1 On and from the companymencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Amendment Act, 1972, numbertenure holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him.
Under sub section 6 of Section 5, transfers of land effected after 24.1.1971 are liable to be ignored in determining the ceiling area of the holder of land, unless, in accordance with proviso b of the said sub section, the holder of the land discharges the burden of satisfying the prescribed authority that the transfers, after the appointed date, were effected on good faith and for adequate companysideration and were number benami.
Record of proceedings, however, does number show that the said land was ever claimed by the Company to have been held by the school as a separate legal entity.
