Holding

A sub‑lessee does not acquire independent tenure‑holder status; the ceiling authority’s dismissal of the claim is correct.

Summary

Hardev Singh, a sub‑lessee of land originally leased by the Government to Lala Khushi Ram and later inherited by Harikishan Lal (Respondent No.2), challenged the declaration of his 2.49‑acre parcel as surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The Prescribed Authority had dismissed his application for relief, holding that he lacked locus, and the High Court affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court examined whether a sub‑lessee becomes a "tenure‑holder" under Sections 3(9) and 3(17) of the Ceiling Act and whether the sub‑lessee acquires independent rights despite the conditions of the original government lease (Clause 9). The Court held that the lease conditions required compliance for any transfer of rights and that sub‑leases for agricultural purposes do not create independent tenure‑holder status. Consequently, the appellant remained only an ostensible holder, and the ceiling authority’s dismissal was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a sub‑lessee, by virtue of the definitions of ‘holding’ and ‘tenure‑holder’ in Sections 3(9) and 3(17) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, acquires the status of a tenure‑holder.
Whether a sub‑lessee is merely an ostensible holder of land with the original government lessee remaining the real holder for purposes of the Ceiling Act.

Legislation cited

Government Grants Act, 1895 (U.P. Amendment Act, 1960)
Land Reforms Act, 1950
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960s. 10(2), s. 11(2), s. 3(17), s. 3(9), s. 5
Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939

Subjects

Ceiling Acttenure holdersub‑leasegovernment leaseland ceilingsurplus landostensible holderagricultural landland reforms

Judgment

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 197 197

HARDEV SINGH A
v.
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2010)
JANUARY 10, 2022 B
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960: Object of legislation – Held: The object of the 1960 Act is to
prescribe a ceiling limit on the area of land held by a ‘tenure holder’
C
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–Land laws.
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, D
1960: ss.3(9) and 3(17)–Prescribed Authority declared certain land
of government lessee-respondent no.2 as surplus – Land declared
surplus included the land sublet to the appellant (sub-lessee) by
government lessee – Aggrieved appellant unsuccessfully
approached the authorities – Writ petition also was dismissed by E
High Court – On appeal, held: 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 F
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 – Thus, the appellant being
a sub-lessee continues to be an ostensible holder of land and the
government grantee, respondent No. 2, to be the real holder – The G
ceiling authorities as well as the High Court rightly dismissed the
claim of the appellant.

H
197
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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
B production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers
with a view to have equitable distribution of land. [Para 18]
[203-G-H]
The terms of the grant go to show that 4805 acres of land
situated in Pargana Bazpur, District Nainital were leased out to
C the Government Lessee. 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 was
made inapplicable in case of sub-leases made by the lessee while
sub-letting the land in the ordinary course of agriculture. A perusal
D
of Condition no. 1 of the Grant made it clear that the grantee was
only allowed to transfer the land on fulfillment of conditions
enumerated in the said clause. Furthermore, even the terms of
the sub-lease specifically provided that if the sub-lessee intended
to purchase the full rights of the Government Lessee thereby
E 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. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 24][208-H; 209-A-B,
E-G]
F Conjoint reading of Clause 5 of the sub-lease and Clause 9
of the Government lease clearly stipulated that acquisition of
rights, if any, as independent tenure holder could 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 instant
case, admittedly, was not followed. An analysis of the terms and
G
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
H of the land in the ordinary course of agriculture but contrary to
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 199

the terms of grant, the sub-lessee can claim no independent A
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
B
independent tenure holder. [Para 26][210-B-F]
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
C
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. [Para 27][210-F-G]
Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously Known As M/s. Escorts
D
Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Kumaon
Division, Nainital, U.P. And Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 281 :
[2004] 2 SCR 543 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 2 SCR 543 relied on Para 29 E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2295 of
2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2008 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.488 of 2007. F
With
Civil Appeal No. 2296 of 2010.
S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Nagendra Singh, Dr. Amardeep Gaur for
M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. G
Tanmaya Agarwal, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Wrick Chatterjee,
Advs. for the Respondents.

H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
B Writ Petitions based on identical facts raising common questions of law,
filed by the appellants herein. Writ 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
C
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
D 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.
E
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
F
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
surplus included the land sub-let to the appellant by Respondent No. 2,
G 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
H ground that the appellant has no locus to maintain the said application.
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 201
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

The appellant challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 9048 of A
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:- B
(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 C
appellant.
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 D
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 E
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. F
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 G
the benefit to the appellant in view of violation of the conditions specified
by Clause 9 of the Lease Deed.
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. H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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’
B 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.
C 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
D 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
E of conditions 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
F 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
G 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
H in Explanation (I) that all land held by a tenure holder would also include
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 203
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

land ostensibly held in the name of any other person. He points out that A
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 they are independent tenure
B
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
C
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.
D
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 E
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 F
of the land, while the Government lessees continued to be
the original holders i.e., the land in question is merely held
by the Appellants on behalf of the original lessees?
Our Analysis
G
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.
H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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,
C 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 -
D
(a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder;
(b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder;
Section 5 :- Imposition of Ceiling. - (1) [On and from the
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
E 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.

F [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
G 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
H the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 205
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so A
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 B
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;];
C
(d) a banking company or a co-operative bank or a co-
operative 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 D
(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
E
together with the land held by him aggregates to two hectares,
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 F
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 G
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
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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]
B
(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
C 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.
D
(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
E 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
F less 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
G 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,
H for purposes of this Act, be deemed to have the shares in that
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 207
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

holding in the same proportions as their respective shares in A
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 tenure-
holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day B
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) C
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 tenure- D
holder 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 E
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];
(b) any admission, acknowledgment, relinquishment or F
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. G
(7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-
holder, 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;
H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.
C [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.]
D 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
E
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
F sub-section (2) of Section 9 and shall be deemed to have
concluded on the date when an order in relation to such
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.]”
G 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
H Government Lessee.
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 209
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

22. Condition No. 9 of the Grant lays down the conditions to be A
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 sub-letting the land in the ordinary course
of agriculture. For a ready reference, the provisions of Clause 9 of the
B
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
C
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
D
cost price or a similar relinquishment of 1/4 of the land
proposed to be transferred.
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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.”
B
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 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
C
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
D
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
E 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
F 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 in view of amendment
G
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 :-

H
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 211
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

STATE AMENDMENTS A
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 B
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. C
(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, D
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 E
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 F
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:
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent, or be
deemed ever to have prevented, the effect of any enactment G
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 H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 sub-lease and he cannot
claim any rights contrary to the terms of the grant.
B
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 :-
C “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:-
D
“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 from
the operation not only on the Acts mentioned therein, but also
of any other law, including the law for imposition of ceiling
E 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
F 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)
G 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:-
1
H (2004) 4 SCC 281
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR 213
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

“Section 18. Settlement of certain lands with intermediaries A
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
B
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 C
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.” D
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’ E
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. F
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 G
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
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D as indefeasible in application of Ceiling Act to the lands in question.”
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
E 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
F 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.

G
Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.

H