Summary
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a case involving the State of Uttar Pradesh and Suresh Chandra Tewari, focusing on the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. This Act aimed to redistribute surplus land to landless and marginalized farmers. The court emphasized the historical context and purpose of the Act, highlighting the commitment to land reforms and equity made by leaders during India’s independence movement. The Act required tenure-holders with land exceeding the ceiling area to submit statements of their holdings, and the Prescribed Authority issued notices to those who failed to comply, leading to the declaration of surplus land.
The case involved a family settlement and subsequent legal battles over the classification of surplus land. The respondents argued that a family settlement had already determined the shares of all family members, which should not be considered as surplus land. However, the Prescribed Authority and subsequent courts rejected this argument, declaring a portion of the land as surplus. The case went through multiple rounds of litigation, with the High Court initially setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority, but the Supreme Court ultimately overturning this decision.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the District Magistrate to take possession of the surplus land and distribute it according to the law. The judgment underscores the importance of land reforms and the legal complexities involved in implementing such policies. It also highlights the challenges faced in ensuring equitable distribution of land and the need for strict adherence to legal procedures to achieve the intended goals of land reform legislation.
Main paragraphs
2. Leave granted. Vide The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in the State of Uttar Pradesh the land over and above a certain limit was to be declared surplus and was then to vest with the State. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as well as the earlier Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were enacted in the State of U.P. immediately after the independence of the Country with this purpose. We must not forget that one of the main commitments of the leaders during the freedom struggle was that the wide disparity and inequality in distribution of land will be changed for the better and abolition of Zamindari and placing a ceiling on land, would be a step towards this goal towards the redistribution of land, based on the principles of equity and justice. Since land was in List II i.e., the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, these legislations regarding land reforms were to be made by the States, and this was done not just in U.P. but throughout the country. Consequently, different States brought about the legislations in their Sates, all aimed at land reforms and redistribution of land where one of the principal elements was putting a surplus on the land holding, the declaration of the surplus land and redistribution of this surplus land to those who were landless and marginalised farmers. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1960’) and the purpose of its enactment has to be seen in this context.
8. According to us, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not appreciated either the position of law or the facts in the case as were required. Once the entire objection of Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari regarding the family settlement, etc. were rejected not only by all the authorities, but also by the High Court and then ultimately by this Court, where the Special Leave Petition itself was withdrawn, there was absolutely no occasion for starting a fresh round of litigation which were nothing less than a ruse and an abuse of the process of law, apart from being barred by Res Judicata.
9. We are not surprised therefore that the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in its order dated 18.10.1994 while allowing the appeal of the State had made a stringent comment on the Prescribed Authority, who ought not to have passed an order on 23.09.1985. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in his order has said that “this decision by the sub-ordinate court also raises question on the integrity of the learned Prescribed Authority”.
10. In fact, we totally agree with the views of the Additional Commissioner that the entire mischief has been done by the Prescribed Authority in this matter, who should not have interfered in this matter. Now it is too late in the day to issue a notice for an order which was passed in the year 1985 by the Prescribed Authority, though this is indeed a case where a departmental enquiry should have been instituted against the concerned officer.
11. Be that as it may, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court dated 21.02.2022 is set aside.
12. The District Magistrate, Hardoi is directed to immediately take possession of the surplus land as declared surplus (33 Biswa 8 Bigha and 14.8 Biswansi) and let the same be distributed to the landless or in accordance with law and process which is now to be followed in such cases.
Party
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors., – Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20021 of 2022. – December 17, 2024 – 2024 INSC 989
