http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAM SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)567

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises against the order of the  High Court of Allahabad made on February 22, 1980 in W.P. No.6667  of 1978.  The finding,  as a fact, recorded by both the  Tribunals under  the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings  Act is  that the  appellant had  cut Out  the existing trees  as on  January  24,  1971  and  planted  new tree.On that  premise, the question arose: whether the trees planted by  the appellant  would be  a grove land within the meaning of Section 23 [8] of the Act which reads as under:      [8] "grove land" means any specific      piece of  land in  a holding having      trees not including [Guava, Papaya,      banana  or   vine  plants]  planted      thereon before January 24, 1971, in      such numbers that they preclude, or      when full  grown will preclude, the      land or  any  considerable  portion      thereof from  being used  primarily      for  any  other  purpose,  and  the      threes on  such land  constitute  a      grove".      A  reading   thereof   clearly   indicates   that   the Legislature has  put a cut off date for existing trees as on January 24,  1971 except  the Guava,  Papaya, Banana or vine plants  planted  before  that  date.  In  other  words,  the Legislature has indicated that any grove existing as on that date with  fully grown  trees would  be the grove except the excepted trees  and for the purpose of the Act. By necessary implication any  tree planted  after that date cannot be the grove land  under the  Act. Though  the contention  of  Shri Pramod Swarup,  learned counsel  for the  appellant that  in place  of  fallen  trees  some  new  trees  were  grown,  is plausible, we cannot give acceptance to the contention since the Legislature  has specifically put a date of the existing trees, viz.,  January 24,  1971. under  these circumstances,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the view  taken by  the High  Court cannot  be  said  to  be unwarranted.      The appeal is dismissed. No costs.