1995 (5) TMI 279 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the lands held by the appellant are excluded from the purview of the Act.
2. Whether the Government Grants Act prescribed the applicability of the Act to the lands covered by the grant.
3. Whether a fresh notice was required after the deletion of s.6(h) of the Act.
4. Whether the judgment in Malkhan Singh's case is applicable to the present case.
5. Whether s.133-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 is applicable to the lease granted under the Government Grants Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around whether the lands held by the appellant are excluded from the purview of the Act. The appellant argued that the lands covered under the Government Grants Act stood excluded from the operation of the Act. However, the Court found that the grant made to the appellant was essentially a lease of agricultural land granted by the Government for cultivation, subject to specific covenants. The Court held that the appellant fell within the definition of a holder of agricultural lands under the Act, and thus, the Act applied to the lands granted to the appellant.

2. The second issue pertains to whether the Government Grants Act prescribed the applicability of the Act to the lands covered by the grant. The Court noted that the proviso to sub-section (3) of s.3 of the Act explicitly stated that the Act applied to lands covered by the Government Grants Act. This provision was inserted with retrospective effect, indicating that even grantee under the Government Grants Act could not exceed the ceiling area prescribed under the Act.

3. The third issue involves the requirement of issuing a fresh notice after the deletion of s.6(h) of the Act. The Court determined that there was no necessity for a fresh notice as the Amendment Act deleting s.6(h) was effective before the notice was issued to the appellant. The Court emphasized that the authority had jurisdiction to determine the ceiling area and declare surplus land even without a fresh notice, as the amendment had come into force by the time of determination.

4. The fourth issue questions the applicability of the judgment in Malkhan Singh's case to the present scenario. The Court held that the facts in Malkhan Singh's case, where a second notice was deemed necessary due to specific circumstances, did not align with the facts of the current case. Therefore, the judgment in Malkhan Singh's case was deemed inapplicable to the present case.

5. The final issue concerns whether s.133-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 is relevant to the lease granted under the Government Grants Act. The Court rejected the appellant's argument, stating that since the lease was granted by the Government under the Government Grants Act, s.133-A had no application in this case.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Act applied to the lands granted to the appellant and that the authorities' actions were within their power and jurisdiction. The judgments cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable to the circumstances of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs.