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

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MADHO KUMAR SWARUP & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 704        1996 SCALE  (1)1

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1383 OF 1978                          O R D E R      Both the  appeals are  disposed of  by common judgement since the State and the aggrieved persons against the orders of the  prescribed authorities  etc. have ultimately come to this Court in this appeals.      It is  not  necessary  to  narrate  all  the  facts  in details. Suffice  it to  state that  under Section 10 of the U.P. Imposition  of Ceiling  on Land  Holding Act 1960, (for short, ‘the  Principal Act’), proceedings were initiated and ceiling area  was determined. Thereon controversy has arisen as to the extent of the ceiling area required to be retained by the  respondent and surplus land that stood vested in the State which is the subject matter of appeals in this Court.      Even  before  their  filing,  the  U.P.  Imposition  of Ceiling on  Land Holdings  (Amendment) Act,  1972 (Act 18 of 1973) (for  short,’the Amendment  Act’), had come into force with effect  from June  8,1973. Section  19 of the Amendment Act provides thus:      "19. Transitory  Provisions ---  (1) All      proceedings  for  the  determination  of      surplus land  under Section  9,  Section      10, Section  11, Section  12, Section 13      or Section  30  of  the  Principal  Act,      pending before any court or authority at      the time  of the  commencement  of  this      Act,  shall  abate  and  the  prescribed      authority shall  start  the  proceedings      for determination  of the  ceiling  area      under that  Act afresh  by  issue  of  a      notice under  sub-section (2) of Section      9 of  that Act  as inserted by this Act:      Provided that  the ceiling  area in such      cases  shall   be  determined   in   the      following manner  --- (a)  firstly,  the

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

    ceiling  area  shall  be  determined  in      accordance with the principal Act, as it      stood before  its amendment by this Act;      (b) thereafter,  the ceiling  area shall      re-determined  in  accordance  with  the      provisions  of   the  Principal  Act  as      amended by this Act." Sub-section (2)  thereof is  not material for the purpose of these cases, hence omitted.      A reading  thereof would  show that all proceedings for determination of  surplus land  under Section 9 to 13, 30 of the Principal  Act pending  before any court or authority at the time  of the  commencement of  the Amendment  Act  shall stand abated and the prescribed authority shall start afresh the proceedings  for determination of the ceiling area under the Principal Act, by issuance of a notice under sub-Section (2) of  Section 9  of the  Principal Act  as amended  by the Amendment Act Ceiling should be determined firstly under the Principal Act  as it  stood  before  its  amendment  by  the Amendment Act. Thereafter, Ceiling area should be redermined as per the Amendment Act. The proviso provides procedure for determination of the ceiling area and the manner in which it requires to be done.      As per  the  orders  of  the  prescribed  authority  on 24.2.1975 placed  on record  as Annexure  ‘E’  in  C.A.  No. 1383/78 filed  by the  respondents in  the State appeal, the prescribed authority  had redetermined  the ceiling  area as per  provisions   of  the   Amendment   Act.   Whether   the redetermination  is   in  accordance   with  law  is  not  a controversy before  us. So it is not necessary to go into it since the  proceedings have  to be taken under the Amendment Act. It  would be open to the State or the persons concerned to pursue  the remedy  according  to  law.  As  regards  the appeals at  hand, as a consequence of Section 19, they stand abated.      The appeals  are  accordingly  dismissed  but,  in  the circumstances, without costs.