9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions related to surrender of surplus land under the U.R Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and Section 12-A of the Act. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the respondent's attempt to surrender land transferred to the appellant and his wife, which was initially included in his holding as surplus land. The respondent sought to surrender this transferred land, but the Prescribed Authority initially refused to accept it. The respondent's appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, with the latter granting him the choice to surrender specific plots. However, the authorities accepted the surrender of the transferred land, leading to further legal challenges. The appellant relied on Section 12-A(d) of the Act, which deals with determining surplus land and the surrender process. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 5(6) and Section 12-A(d) to establish the legal position. It was clarified that while transfers made after a specified date are ignored for determining ceiling area, the Prescribed Authority can accept surrender of transferred land if necessary, deeming the transfer void. The objective is to avoid complications in surrendering transferred land, ensuring clear title to the government. The Court emphasized that the authorities should have followed the Act's provisions in examining the surrender offer. The respondent should surrender non-transferred land first, with transferred land only if necessary. The Court criticized the authorities for misinterpreting the Supreme Court's order, clarifying that it did not override the Act's provisions. A reference to a previous case supported the Court's interpretation of excluding transferred land from surplus area determination. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders. The Prescribed Authority was directed to reconsider the respondent's surrender proposal in line with Section 12-A of the Act and the Court's judgment, emphasizing a prompt decision due to the prolonged legal proceedings. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
