Holding

Land held by a wife as a member of the family, even if only under Asami right, is to be included in the holding of the tenure‑holder for the purpose of computing the ceiling under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Summary

The appellant, Prem Ballabh Belwal, was a tenure‑holder of 182 acres of bhumiswami land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. His wife, Basanti Devi, held 24 acres as an Asami (occupancy) right. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the wife's land, held only in occupation, should be counted as part of the appellant's holding for ceiling computation. The Court examined the definitions of "land" and "family" in the Ceiling Act and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and held that a wife is a member of the family and her land, even if held under Asami right, must be included in the tenure‑holder's holding. The wife's death and succession by her sons did not alter this inclusion. Consequently, the entire 206 acres were deemed the appellant's holding, and the surplus land was to be surrendered as per the Act. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether land held by a wife under Asami right is to be included in the holding of the tenure‑holder for the purpose of ceiling computation under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
How the definitions of "land" and "family" in the Ceiling Act and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 affect the inclusion of such land.
Effect of the wife's death and succession by her sons on the computation of the ceiling.

Legislation cited

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 3(14)

Subjects

land ceilingtenure‑holderAsami rightfamily definitionland reformssurplus landsuccessionUttar Pradesh

Judgment

~
SHRI PREM BALLABH BELWAL A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
f
JULY 24, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 : Sections
3(7)(9)( 17)(21) and 5.
• U.P. Zaminda1i Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950: Sectio113(14).
- c
Tenure lzo/dei--Excess land-Computatio11 of-Land held by wife of
the tenure holder as Asami right-Wife died dwi11g pendency of ceiling
proceedings-Sons succeeding to her State-Land held by wife included i11 the
hol'di11g of te11ure-holde1-<:laim that such property was not to be included in
the holding of husband rejected by Tribunal and High Cowt-Appeal--Held D
y
land held by wife as a member of the family shall be included in the holding
of appellant tenure-holde1-Surplus land should be detennined accordingly.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1279 of
1979.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.79 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2960 of 1977.

Satish Chandra, Shri Prakash and J.B. Gaur for the Appellant.

G.K. Mathur, Ashok K. Srivastava (Sudhir Kr. Gupta) (NP) for the F
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

..,.. Delay condoned .
G
Substitution allowed.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are ordered to be transposed as appellants.

This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Al-
lahabad High Court made on January 4, 1979 in CMWP No. 2960/77. The H
1
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A admitted position is that the first appellant as tenure-holder under the
provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(Act 1 of 1961) (for short, the 'Act') held bhumiswami lands of an extent
of 182 acres in Ram Nagar and Nainital Tehsils of Nainital District and in 't
tehsil Ranikhet of Almore district. In addition, his wife Smt. Basanti Devi
B held 127 bighas (24 acres) of agricultural land in the village Sanwalde,
Tehsil Ram Nagar. After the Act has come into force, the tenure-holder
was enjoined to file his return under Section 5 in Chapter II of the Act.
When the land held by this wife was sought to be included in the holding
of the appellant, his wife filed objection stating that she was in possession

c of the land as Sirtan of the agricultural land which is later termed as '
'Asami' right; she had no title to the property and was liable to be ejected
any time and, therefore,. the land could not be included in the holding of
the tenure-holder. The claim was rejected by the Tribunals and in the writ
petition, the learned Judge, while holding that Smt. Basanti Devi is not a
holder within the meaning of Section 3(9) of the Act and not a "tenure-
D holder" within the meaning of Section 3(17) of the Act, came to the
f
conclusion that being a memb.er of the "family" defined under Section 3(7)
of the Act, she was holding the land of the 24 acres. Consequently, the land
was required to be included in the holding the the tenure-holder, namely,
the appellant.
E
Shri Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel for the appellant, sought
to draw a distinction between holding and occupation of the land. Section
3(21) of the Act envisages that the expressions not defined in the Act would
be construed to be the appropriate expressions as defined in the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'Abolition
F
Act'). Section 3(14) of the Abolition Act defines 'land' to include land held
and the land occupied. The Act envisages imposition of ceiling in respect
of the land held by a tenure-holder. The occupation thereby, which would
envisage some semblance of title to the property, alone would be included
in the holding of a tenure-holder. Since Basanti Devi was not holding land
G as a tenure-holder but was in precarious occupation and enjoyment of the
land, the same cannot be included in the holding of the tenure-holder. It
"
is true that Section 3(14) of the Abolition Act, while defining the land,
made a distinction between land invested with title and land in occupation
and enjoyment for the purpose of the Abolition Act. The Ceiling Act
H envisages land held by the tenure-holder for the purpose of imposition of
i
P.B. BELWAL v. STATE 3

the ceiling. The object of the Act is that no tenure-holder should hold and A
remain in possessioi{ and enjoyment of agricultural land in excess of ceiling
limit. The family must not hold in excess thereof. It would be seen that
distinction sought to be made in the Abolition Act read in isolation of the
Ceiling Act does indicate that there is a difference between the person
having title to the property and person remaining in occupation and
B
enjoyment of land governed under the provisions of the Abolition Act. The
assami under the Abolition Act does not appear to get any absolute right
except as envisaged in the Abolition Act and is liable to ejectment on
fulfilment of the conditions envisaged in the relevant provisions of the Act.
The Act defines 'family' under Section 3(7) to include the tenure-holder,
his wife, if she happens to be a tenure-holder, her husband, the spouse, the c
minor daughters, sons except married daughters. The person who him-
self/herself is a holder, will be treated to be a tenure-holder and computa-
tion of the ceiling would be done in accordance with law. If the
tenure-holder happens to be a member of the family, though the wife has
property of her own, the intendment of the Act appears to that the lands D
held by the tenure-holder, the wife/husband in the name of minor children
but not married daughters, all are to be included in the holding of the
tenure-holder. After, excluding 7-1/2 hectares of the land as the ceiling
determined under Section 5 and after permissible computation, the rest of
the land is to be declared as surplus land.
E
It is not in dispute that Smt. Basanti Devi died on 9.2.1979 pending
ceiling proceedings. It is also stated in paragraph 2 of SLP that the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5, sons succeeded to her estate. In other words, they
have held the land after her demise as successors. Under these circumstan-
ces, in determining as to what was the incidence of her holding 24 acres,
F
it would be suffice to hold that her lands passed on to her sons. It is but
necessarily to be concluded that she had held the land as assami and the
tenure-holder held the fand of his wife. Total land held by him is 182+24
acres, i.e., 206 acres. It is sought to be offered that the tenure-holder is
prepared to surrender the land held by his wife and that, therefore, the G
excess bhumiswami land held by the tenure-holder may not be taken to be.
in his possession. We would make it clear that in the event of the
appellant's surrendering the 24 acres of land held by Smt. Basanti Devi,
necessarily the same land cannot be included in the holding of the husband,
the first appellant-tenure-holder. In the event of their not surrendering the H
A
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

land, the ceiling authority shall necessarily compute t~e entire land in the
holding of tenure-holder and the surplus land accordingly be determined
and the procedure prescribed for surrender should be followed and action
-
taken according to law within four months from the date of receipt of the
order of this Court.
B The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observatioi~s. No
costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
...
I