9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot taken place. The High Court has answered this question against the appellant-State. 2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-State that the said decision of the High Court is erroneous in law. We may mention that at the time of issuance of notice in these proceedings it was clearly indicated to the respondent tenure-holder that the notice was being issued in view of paragraph (9) of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin [1982]3SCR482 . We will refer to the said judgment a little later. 3. In the first instance we may glance through the introductory facts leading to these proceedings. Respondent No. 3 was issued a notice under Section to Sub-section (2) of the Act by the competent authority functioning under the Act for submitting his objections against the statements prepared under the said Section by the authority indicating various lands held by Respondent No. 3 on the appointed day, which were liable to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the said respondent was holding any excess land above the permissible ceiling area which would naturally vest in the State. Respondent No. 3 while fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant submitted that on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act it must be held that the lands covered by the agreements did not cease to belong to Respondent No. 3 on the appointed day and were liable to be included in computation of permissible ceiling area available to Respondent No. 3 under the Act. That mere Agreements to Sell created no Interest in the proposed transferees and that it was not necessary for the applicability of Section 5(i) of the Act to show that the tenure-holder was actually in physical possession of the lands owned by him. That even lands in his constructive possession through licensees or tenants or even prospective transferees under Agreements to Sell in their favour would all be liable to be included within the holding of the tenure-holder. In this connection strong reliance was placed on the observations of a three member Bench of this Court in the decision of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin (supra) as found in paragraph (9) of the said Report. 6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that the aforesaid decision of this Court was rendered in the light of a different statutory scheme con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uant to such an agreement. But that has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the said land till they are legally conveyed by Sale Deed to the proposed transferees. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third party like the appellant-State when it seeks to enforce the provisions of the Act against the tenure-holder, proposed transferor of these lands. Section 5 Sub-section (1) of the Act provides that on and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. The definition of the term 'tenure-holder' as found in Section 3 Sub-section (17) lays down that a 'tenureholder' means a person who is the holder of a holding. 'Holding' is defined by Section 3 Sub-section (9) to mean the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h persons. Still however, the first part of the definition in Andhra Pradesh Act, namely, 'holding' to mean the entire land held by a person as an owner is analogous to the definition of the word 'holding' as found in the present Act as per Section 3(9) which also defines the word 'holding' as land or lands held by a person. It is true that in the Andhra Pradesh Act there is an explanation which makes the land covered by agreement to sell liable to be included also in the holding of the transferee. In absence of such an explanation in Uttar Pradesh Act, such land may not be included in the holding of the transferee. However, the liability of the transferor to get such land included in his holding remains untouched in both the Acts. To that extent, schemes of both the Acts run on parallel lines. So far the term 'land held by a person' is concerned, in the aforesaid decision, the following pertinent observations are found in paragraph (9) of the Report: It is now well settled that a person in possession pursuant to a contract for sale does not get title to the land unless there is a valid document of title in his favour. In the instant case it has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
