Holding

Liability to surrender surplus land attaches on the appointed day of ceiling imposition and persists despite the tenure‑holder’s death; surplus land is to be measured as of that date, and the heirs together may retain only the ceiling area.

Issues considered

Whether the liability to surrender surplus land under the ceiling law continues after the tenure‑holder’s death before service of notice under s.10(2).
Whether surplus land should be determined on the appointed day of ceiling imposition or on the date of actual computation.
Whether heirs of a deceased tenure‑holder are to be treated as separate tenure‑holders each entitled to one ceiling unit.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of res judicata.
Whether the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Civil Judge were legally valid.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960s. 10, s. 5, s. 9
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961s. Rule 19

Subjects

land ceilingsurplus landdeath of tenure‑holderres judicataUttar Pradesh land reformappointed dayRule 19statutory liability

Judgment

STATE OF U:P. A
V.·
\ CIVIL JUDGE, NAINITAL & ORS.

NOVEMBER 5, 1986

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] B

-1 Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act 1960/
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Rules, 1961:
Sections 5, 9 & 10/Rule 19-'Surplus Land'-Determination of-
Principle applicable-Is date on which ceiling is imposed by statute.
~
}--- c
/
Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
HoldlDgs Act, 1960 provided that on and from the commencement of
the U.P; Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act,
~
1972, which clll™' into force on 8.6.1973, no tenure-holder would be
entitled to hold in the aggregate thro'!gbout Uttar Pradesh, any land in
excess of the.'ceiling area', as defined in sub-s.(2) ofs.3 of the Act. D

Since Smt. Amna Begum, the tenure-holder was holding in the
aggregate land in excess of the ceiling area, she became liable to surren~
der the surplus lancl. Pursuant to a general notice issued under s.9 to all
tenure-holders, holding land in excess of the ceiling area, she did not file
any statement before the Prescnbed Authority. After the publication of E
the general notice but before she could be served with a notice under
s. I 0(2) she died. The Prescribed Authority not knowing of her death
issued a notice under s.10(2) calling upon her to show cause why the
- statement prepared by him under s. l 0( 1) should not be taken as cor-
rect. The father of resJiondent No. 4, one of the heirs, filed objections
which were. over-ruled, and it was declared that Smt. Amna Begum was . F
holding 17 .37 hectares of land aS surplus land.

The District Judge holding that since the tenure-holder was dead
by the time the notice under s.10(2) was issued, the order of the Pre-
scribed Authority passed against a dead person .could not be allowed to
stand, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Prescribed Author- G
ity and remaI_lded the case.

Fresh notices under s.10(2) were issued to the heirs. Respondent
No. 3 contended that she held only 91.12 bigbas of land as her one-
fourth share and that 12 acres of land had been transferred through
registered sale deed for adequate consideration and in gOod faith and H

99
[()() SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C.R.

A the land to that extent sbonld be excluded from the holding while de- '>-"
tennioing the surplus land and that the determination of the su.-plus
land should be made on the basis ?f the share held by each of them as an
individual tenure-bolder.

The Prescribed Authority held that there was no surplus land that
B could be claimed from the holding in question since none of the heirs of
deceased tenure-bolder was in possession of the land in excess of the
ceiling area.

The appeal by the State Government against the order of the
Prescribed Authority was dismissed by the Civil Judge holding that __..( 7
c Smt. Amoa Begum could not be treated as a tenure-bolder after her
death, and that since none of the heirs of Amoa Begum was holding the
land in excess of the ceiling area they were not liable to surrender any
/)..
surplus land.

The petition under Article 226 filed by the State Government. was
D dismissed holding that the State Government was not entitled to 11ues-
lion the correctness of the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the
Civil Judge as the order of remand of the case passed by the District
Judge bad become final.

Allowing the Appeal,
E ,..l_
HELD: I. The orders passed by the High Court, the Civil Judge
and the Prescribed Authority are set aside and the case is remanded to
the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal. [I 07D]

2. The reason given by the High Court for holding that the con-
-.
F tentious urged on behalf of the State Government were barred by the ,/""'
rule of res judicata is wholly untenable since the District Judge while
remanding the case bad not recorded any finding on the merits of the -'-.
contentions of the parties. He bad set aside the order of the Prescribed
Authority passed earlier only on the gr?""d that a proceeding which
bad been commenced against a dead person was a nullity. He, howe·ver,
G remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal in
accordance with law after issuing notices to the heirs of Smt. Amoa
Begum whom be wrongly described as tenure-holders so far as her
estate was concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in dismis- -;-·
sing the writ petition on that ground. [104D-105A]
H 3. Smt. Amoa Begum was alive on 8.6.1973 on which date ceiling
STATE OF U.P. r. CIVIL JUDGE JO I

oo the ~ in the State of Uttar Pradesh was imposed by s.S of the Act. A
Smt. Amna Begum became 6able to swTender the surplus land in excess of
what she could retain, in accordance with that section. Merely because she
had died before the~ of the notice under s.10(2) of the Act the liability
to silrrender the surplus land would not come to an end. [lOSC]

4. Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land B
Holdings Rules: 1961 framed under the Act provides that where a
tenure-bolder dies before the publication of the general notice under s.9
of the Act, such publication shall be deemed to apply to the executor,
1 administrator or other legal representatives and the Prescribed Autho-
)-- - rity may proceed to determine the ceiliitg area applicable . to the
deceased person as 'if such executor administrator or other legal re- c
presentatives were the tenure-holder. It also provides that where a
tenure-holder dies before he is served with a notice under sub-s, (2) of
s.10 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority may serve such notice on his
') executor, administrator or other legal representatives and may proceed
to determine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such
executor, administrator o; other legal representatives were the tenure- D
holders. [1050-F]

S. The princlple applicable to the determination of the surplus
land under the land reform laws in the hands of person holding land is
I the date on which the ceiling is imposed. [IOSG]
:>.. E
6. The surplus land in the case of a person wlio held land in excess
of the ceiling area on the appointed day had to be determined as oo the

- appointed day even though such person might have died before the actual
extent of surplus land was determined and notified. The persons on
whom bis holding devolved on bis death would be iiable to surrender the
surplus land as oo the appointed day because the liability attached to the F
holding of the deceased woold not come to an end on bis death. [i06E-F]

Raghunath Laxman Wani v.State' of Maharashtra, (1971] 3
S.C.C. 391 at page 397 & Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by Lrs. and
Others v. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed and Others, (1982] I S.C.C.
680, followed. · G

7. For the purpose of deciding the surplus land which is liable to
'T · be surrendered from and out of the estate of Smt. Amoa Begum; the
relevant date that might be taken into &ccount is 8.6.1973 on which date
the ceiling on holdings was imposed and she became liable to surrender
the surplus land. Her heirs or legal representatives together are entitled H
!02 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C.R.

A to retain out of her estate only an extent of land equal to the area ·which ·
she could have retained in her bands after the imposition of ceiling on
land holdings and are liable to surrender the surplus land. [1078-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3947
of 1986
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8. 1982 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5105 of 1982.

Pramod Swarup, R. Singh Rana and Ashok K. Srivastava for the._...{
7
Appellant. ,
c G.N. Dixit, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
D VENKATARAMIAH, J. Smt. Arnna Begum was a resident of
Rehpura Village, Tehsil Kichha, District Nainital in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. She owned a fairly large ·extent of agricultural land. On
8.6. 1973 the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force. Section 5 of the Uttar
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein-
E after referred to as 'the Act') provided that on and from the comm-
encement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Hold·
ings (Amendment) Act, 1972 no tenure-holder would be entitled .to
hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of
the ceiling area applicable in him or her. The expression 'ceiling area'
is defined in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act as the area of land ,....o
- ..

F · not being exempted under the Act, determined as such in accordance' •.
with the provisions of section 5 thereof. Since Smt. Arnna Begum, the
tenure-holder, was holding in the aggregate in the State of Uttar
Pradesh land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to her, ~he became
liable to surrender the surplus land, i.e., the land held by her in excess
of the ceiling area, applicable to her, in favour of the Government
G under the Act. A general notice was issued under section 9 of the Act
to all tenure-holders holding land in excess of the ceiling area for
submission of statements in respect thereof. She did not file any state·
ment before the Prescribed Authority as provided by section 9 of the
Act. After the publication of the said general notice but before she
could be served with a notice under section 10(2) of the Act to submit
H her statement. Smt. Arnna Begum died. The Prescribed Authority
STATE OF U.P. v. CIVIL JUDGE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.I 103

who had no knowledge of the death of Smt. Amna Begum, however, A
issued a notice addressed to her under section· 10(2) of the Act calling
u'pon her to show cause within the period specified in the notice why
the statement prepared by him under section IO( I) of the Act should
not be taken as correct. The said notice could not, no doubt, be served
on her, but one Fazal Ahmad, the father of Shams A_hmad-res-
pondent No. 4, who was one of the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum filed 8
·1
objections before the Prescribed Authority to the notice issued under
section 10(2) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority overruled the said
objections and declared that Smt. Amna Begum was holding 17 .37
}.__hectares of land as surplus land by his order dated November 29, 1975.
Aggrieved by that order Fazal Ahmad, since deceased·, and Shams
Ahmad, son of Fazal Ahmad filed on appeal in Ceiling Appeal No. 541
of 1975 before the District Judge; Nainital. That appeal was allowed
c
on February 14, 1977. The order against which the appeal had been
filed was set aside and the case was remanded to the Prescribed
Authority to issue fresh notice to the tenure-holders concerned, if
necessary. The reason given in the order passed by the District Judge,
Nainital for allowing the appeal was· that the tenure-holder, Smt. D
Amna Begum was dead by the time the notice under section 10(2) of
the Act was issued and the order of the Prescribed Authority passed
against a dead person could not be allowed to stand. The learned
District Judge did not record any other finding on the merits of the
I
case.· After remand the case was enquired into by the Prescribed
>- Authority. In that proceeding fresh notices under section 10(2). of the E
Act was issued to the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum. Smt. Sharifan
Begum, respondent No. 3, one of the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum
- appeared before the Prescribed Authority and contended inier alia
that she held only 91. i2 bighas of land in village Rehpura, as her
>--. one-four~h share in the estate of Smt. Amna Begum along with the
, • other heirs of Smt. Amna Begum. She also pleaded that 12 acres of F
land had been transferred in favour of Daulat Ram and Prem Nath
through registered sale-deed for adequate consideration, the transfer
was in good faith and, therefore, the said extent of land should be
excluded from the holding while determining the surplus land. She
further contended that the determination of the surplus land should be
made on the basis of the share held by each of the heirs of Smt. Amna Cl
Beguin treating each of them as an individual tenure-holder entitled to
land equal to one ceiling area in the estate of Smt. Amna Begum as she
had died prior to the service of the notice. The Prescribed Authority
accepted the contentions urged on'betialf of the heirs of Smt. Amila
Begum and found that there was no surplus-land that could be claimed
from the holding in question since none of the heirs of Smt. Amna H
104 S\JPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A Begum was in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area.
Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the State Government
filed an appeal before the Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 32
of 1981. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal holding that
Smt. Amna Begum could not be treated as a tenure-holder after her
death and that after her d1,ath each of the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum
B should be treated as an independent tenure-holder entitled to one unit
of ceiling area for purposes of determination of the surplus land. He
agreed with the _PrescTibed Authority that since none of the heirs of
Smt. Amna Begum was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area,
they were not liable to surrender any surplus land. The learned Civil · i
Judge also held that the contention urged on behalf of the State "°"\.
C Government that Smt. Amoa Begum who was alive on 8.6. 1973 which .
was the relevant date for determining the surplus land sho.uld be
treated as the tenure-holder could not be maintained because the said
contention was barred by res judicata on account of the decision of the
_:r
District Judge, Nainital in Ceiling Appeal No. 54 l of 1975, under
which the case had been remanded earlier to the Prescribed Authority
D for fresh disposal. The appeal filed by the State Qovernment was,
therefore, difmissed. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Civil
Judge, Nainital, the State Government filed a writ petition before the
High Court. That writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge,
who heard it by his order dated August 30, 1982. The only reason
given by the learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, for dismissing
E it was that the, State Government was not entitled to question the
correctness of the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Civil
Judge as the order of remand of the case passed by the District Judge
had become final and the contentions of the State Government were
barred by the rule of res judicata. This appeal by special leave is filed
against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition.
-
F _.,-(.
At the outset it should be stated that the reason given by the
High Court for holding that the contentions urged on behalf of the ~-
State Government were barred by the rule of res-judicata is wholly
untenable since the learned District Judge, who disposed of the appeal
on 14.2.1977 had not recorded any finding on the merits of the conten-
G tions of the parties. He had set aside the order of the Prescribed
Authority passed earlier only on the ground that a proceeding which
had been commenced against a dead person was a nullity. He, how-
ever, remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for fn;sh disposal -,.·
in accordance with law after issuing notices to the heirs of Smt. Amoa
Begum whom he wrongly described as tenure-holders sofair as the
H estate ofSmt. Amoa Begum was concerned. The High Court was,
STATE OF U.P. v. CIVIL JUDGE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) l05

therefore, wrong in dismissing the writ petition on that ground. As . A
regards the contention urged on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5-
Smt. Sharifan Begum, Shams Ahmad and Smt. Ahmadi Begum who
were the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum, namely, that for purposes of
computation of the surplus land in their hands the relevant date that
should be ta)cen into consideration is the date on which such computa- .
tion was made and not the date on which the ceiling was imposed by 8
section 5 of the Act it has to be stated that the orders of the Prescribed
Authority and the Civil Judge passed after the order of remand are
wholly erroneous.

Smt. Amna Begum was alive on 8.6.1973 on which date the
ceiling on the holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh was imposed by c
section 5 of the Act. Smt. Amna Begum became liable to surrender the
surplus land in her hands in excess of what she could retain in accord-
ance with that section. Merely because she had died before the issue of
the notice under section 10(2) of the Act her liability to surrender the
surplus land would not 'come to an end. Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 framed unqer the D
Act provides that where a tenure-holder dies before the publication of·
the general notice under section 9 of the Act, such publication shall be
deemed to apply to the executor, administrator or other legal re-
presentatives and the Prescribed Authority may proceed to determine
).- the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if s'uch executor,
administrator, or other legal representatives were the tenure-holder. It E
also provides tharwhere a tenure-holder dies before he is served with a

- notice under sub-section (2) of section lO of the Act, the Prescribed
Authority may serve such notice on his executor, administrator or
other legal representati~es and may proceed to determine .the ceiling
area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, adminis-
trator, or other legal representatives were the tenure-holder. F

The principle applicable to the determination of the surplus iand
under the land reform laws in the hands of persons holding land on ihe
date on which the ceiling is imposed is explained by this Court in
Raghunath Lluman Wani v. State of Maharashtra, [1971] 3 S.C.C. 391
at page 397 thus: G

"The scheme of the Act seems to be to determine the ceil-
ing area of each person (including a family) with reference
to the appointed day. The policy of the Act appears to be
that on and after the appointed day no person in the State
H
should be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1987) l S.C.R.

area as determined under the Act and that ceiling area
A would be that which is determined as on the appointed day.
Therefore, if there is a family consisting of persons exceed-
ing five in number on January 26, 1962, the ceiling area for
that family would be the basic ceiling area plus I/6th there-
of per member in excess of the number five. The ceiling
B area so fixed would not be laible to fluctuations with the
subsequent increase or decrease in the number of its mem- Y
bers, for, there is, apart from the explicit language of sec-
tions 3 and 4, no provision in the Act providing for the
redetermination of the ceiling area of a family on variations _J
in the number of its members. The argument that every· - ' 7
addition or reduction in the number of the members of a
c family requires redetermination of the ceiling area of such
a family would mean an almost perpetual fixation and re- >-
fixation in the ceiling area by the Revenue authorities, a
state of affairs hardly to have been contemplated by the
legislature."
D
The principle enunciated in the above decision has been followed
by this Court in Bhikoba Shankar Dhuma/ (dead) by Lrs. and Others
v. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed and Others., [1982) I S.C.C. 680. In
that case it was held that the surplus land in the case of a person who
held land in excess of the ceiling area on the appointed day had to be
E determined as on the appointed day even though such person might
have died before the actual extent of surplus land was determined and
notified. It was further held that the persons on whom his holding
devolved on his death would be liable to surrender the surplus land as
on the appointed day.because the liability attached to the holding of
the deceased would not come to an end on his death.
-
F
Although the above decisions are rendered in cases arising under
the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 196 I
the principle set out therein applies to all cases where there is an
imposition of ceiling on lands held l/Y land holders by land ceiling laws
with effect from a specified date. In fact rule 19 of the Rules framed
d under the Act which is referred to above also leads to the same view.
Whatever surplus land was liable to be surrendered by a tenure-holder
has to be determined as on 8.6. 1973 and taken possession under the
Act even though the tenure-holder might have died after 8.6.1973 and
before such ascertainment.

H We, therefore, do not agree with the view of the Prescribed
STATE OF U.P. v. CIVIL JUQGE [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] !07

Authority and the Civil Judge that for ·purposes of determining the A
surplus land the share of land in the hands of each of the heirs of Smt.
Amna Begum should be treated as a separate unit for detehnining the
surplus land. We hold that tor purposes of deciding the surplus land
which is liable to be surendered froin out of the estate of Smt. Amna
Begum, the relevant date that should be taken into account is 8.6.1973
8
on which date the ceiling on holdings was imposed and Smt. Amna
"'1
Begum became liable to surrender the surplus land in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. The heirs or legal representatives of Smt.
Amna Begum together are entitled to retain out of the estate of Smt.
)....__ Amna Begum only an extent of land equal to the area which Smt.
....,_ / Amna Begum Could have retained in her hands after the imposition of
ceiling on land holdings and are liable to surrender the surplus land. C
The High Court failed to consider this aspect of the question when it
disposed of the writ petition.

We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the High Court, by
the Civil Judge on 4.12.1981 and by the Prescribed Authority on
D.
16.1.1981 and remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for fresh
disposal in accordance with. law and in the light of this judgment. All.
other questions are left open. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
There will be no order as to costs.

A.P.J. Appeal allowed.
E -

'
t
)