http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1973

BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. RAY, A.N. (CJ)

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1920            1974 SCR  (1) 253  1974 SCC  (2)  27  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1980 SC1762  (34)

ACT: Under  Pradesh  Consolidation of Holdings  Act.  1953.   Ss. 5(2),  49, 48A--Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on  Land Holdings  Act,  1960, Ss. 10, 12-- Objections  to  Statement served under s. 10 of Ceiling Act and dispute as to plots to be retained in the ceiling area-Initiation of  Consolidation proceedings  under the Consolidation  Act-Proceedings  under Ceiling  Act  if  "in respect of declaration  of  rights  or interest in any land lying in tire area" within the  meaning s.   5(2) and therefore should abate.

HEADNOTE: Section 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act  enacts, inter  alia, that upon the issuance of a notification  under sub-section  (2) of section 4 "every suit or proceedings  in respect  of  declaration of rights or interest in  any  land lying  in the area" "shall on an order being passed in  that behalf  by the court or authority before whom such  suit  or proceeding is pending, stand abated." The appellant is the tenure holder of a large area of  land. Since the appellant did not file a statement of its  holding as  required  by s. 9 of the U.P. Imposition of  Ceiling  on Land  Holdings Act. the Prescribed Authority under  the  Act served  on  it  a statement prepared  under  section  10  in respect of its holdings.  The appellant filed objections  to the  statement indicating the plots it wanted to  retain  as its  ceiling area.  The Prescribed Authority did not  accept the  appellant’s choice wholly.  While the proceedings  were pending  before  the  authorities  under  the  Ceiling   Act consolidation  proceedings  were  initiated  in  respect  of appellant’s  lands  under the Consolidation  Act.   A  large number of persons filed claims to the plots of the appellant before   the  consolidation  authorities.   The   appellants thereupon  filed applications before the  authorities  under the  Ceiling  Act  for stay of  the  proceedings  under  the Ceiling Act.  These were rejected.  In- a writ petition  the High Court accepted the contention of the appellant that the authorities  under  the  Ceiling Act  should  have  accepted entirely  the choice of plots which it wanted to  retain  as the ceiling area and directed the authorities to decide  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

matter  afresh.   The  High Court  also  directed  that  the proceedings  before  the  Consolidation  Authorities   would remain  stayed  during the continuance  of  the  proceedings under  the  Ceiling  Act.   On  the  question  whether   the proceedings  under  the  Ceiling  Act  are  "in  respect  of declaration  of rights or interest in any land lying in  the area," within the meaning of that expression in s. 5(2), HELD  : Allowing the appeal, that the proceedings under  the Ceiling  Act were abated under s. 5(2) of the  Consolidation Act. (i)The Prescribed Authority acting under Ss. 10(2) and  12 of  the Ceiling Act is an "authority" within the meaning  of that expression in s. 5(2). [256E-F] (ii)Section  5(2)  will  not apply where  a  tenure  holder voluntarily files a statement of his holdings under  section 9 and there is no dispute about the right or interest in the holdings,  or when the tenure holder accepts the  statements sent  to him by the Prescribed Authority under s.  10.   But where  the  tenure  holder  does  not  voluntarily  file   a statement  under s. 9 and claims that he is not  the  tenure bolder  of  all  or  some of  the  plots’  included  in  the statement prepared under s. 10 there ensues a dispute  about a  right  or  interest  in  land  and  there  is   adversary proceedings between him and the government.  The  prescribed authority decides under s. 12 whether the tenure holder  has any right or interest in all or some of the plots, and those plots in which he has no right or interest are excluded from the  statement served on him under s. 10.  This is the  very question  in issue before the Consolidation Authority  under the   Consolidation  Act.   If  the  claims  made   to   the appellant’s  plots pending under the Consolidation  Act  are allowed a large area of land included in the statement under S.  10  of  the Ceiling Act Bill have to  be  excluded  from consideration by the prescribed Authority.  Therefore.  non- stay  of  proceedings  under the  Ceiling  Act  would  cause hardship  to  the  appellant.   As  soon  as   consolidation operations  are closed the proceeding under the Ceiling  Act may be resumed. [256H] (iii)The purpose of the non obstante clause in s. 49 is to  exclude  the  operation of any  other  overlapping  Act. Section 5(2) and 49 indicate clearly 254 that  the proceedings in the instant case are to  be  abated under s. 5(2).  Further, the absence of a provision like  s. 48A  in  relation  to the  jurisdiction  of  the  Prescribed Authority  under  the  Ceiling Act  lends  support  to  this inference. [258A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1971 Appeal by Certificate from the judgment and order dated July 27,  1970 of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.  1701 of 1964-. A.   H. Khwaja in person, for the appellant. G.   N.   Dikshit, S. P. Singh, R. Bana and O. P.  Rana  for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI  J.  The appellant, the  Agricultural  &  Industrial Syndicate Ltd., is the tenure-bolder of a large area of land in  two  villages  in the district of  Saharanpur  in  Uttar Pradesh, Aithal Buzurg and Bukkanpur.  Some of its land have been declared as ’surplus land’ under the U.P. Imposition of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act).  It went in appeal against the order declaring surplus  land  to the District Judge, but  without  success. Its  writ  petition  has  been  partly  allowed  and  partly dismissed  by  the Allahabad High Court.   This  appeal,  by special  leave, is directed against the latter part  of  the order of the High Court. The scheme of the Ceiling Act is to allow a tenure-holder to retain  such  of  his plots as are assigned to  him  as  his ceiling  area and to acquire the remaining plots as  surplus land.  The ceiling area and the surplus land are  determined by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Ceiling Act. The  Prescribed  Authority issues a general  notice  calling upon all the tenure-holders of a village to file a statement in  respect of their holdings.  Under s. 9  a  tenure-holder files  his statement in respect of all his holdings as  well as indicates the plot or plots which he would like to retain as his ceiling area.  Where a tenure holder fails to file  a statement  or submits an incomplete or  incorrect  statement under  s. 9, section 10 enables the Prescribed Authority  to prepare  a statement in regard to Was holdings and serve  it on him.  As the appellant did not file a statement under  s.  9, a  statement prepared under S. 10 was served on it.   An objection  was  filed by it.  The  objection  indicated  the plots  which it wanted to retain as its ceiling  area.   The Prescribed  Authority  did not accept  its  choice  wholly. After the decision of the Prescribed Authority, it  received C.  H. Form V issued under the provisions of the  U.P.  Con- solidation  of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be  referred  as the Consolidation Act) with respect to the land situated  in village  Bukkanpur.   A review application  was  then  moved before  the  Prescribed  Authority  on  the  ground  of  the pendency  of consolidation operations in village  Bukkanpur. The  application was rejected on September 15, 1962.   While the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority was pending,  village  Aithal  Buzurg  was  also  brought  under consolidation operations.  The appellant received C.H.  Form V  issued  under the Consolidation Act with respect  to  the plots  situate  in  village  Aithal  Buzurg.   It  made   an application to the appellate authority informing him of  the initiation of consolidation operations in the                             255 two villages.  It is said that the appellate authority  took no  notice  of  the application and decided  the  appeal  on merits.  The appellate authority also did not accept  wholly the  choice  of the appellant in regard to the plots  to  be retained  as its ceiling area.  In the writ petition  before the  High  Court,  the appellant  pressed  two  points  for. consideration.   First,  the Prescribed  Authority  and  the appellate authority should have accepted entirely the choice of the plots which it wanted to retain as the ceiling  area; second,   the  two  authorities  should  have   stayed   the proceedings  under  the  Ceiling  Act  during  consolidation operations  in the said villages.  The first contention  was accepted  by the High Court; the second was  rejected.   The High Court quashed the order of the appellate authority  and directed  it  to  decide  the appeal in  the  light  of  its judgment.  The High Court also directed that the proceedings before  the  consolidation authorities would  remain  stayed until  the  appeal was decided by  the  appellate  authority under  the  Ceiling  Act.  This appeal is  confined  to  the second point. The  High  Court has rejected the second  argument  for  two reasons:  One, there was no merit in the  argument;  second, the  appellant  had  not  raised  the  argument  before  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority. It now transpires that while the petition was pending in the High  Court,  the  Consolidation  Officer  and  the   Asstt. Settlement Officer had adjudicated upon the objections of  a large  number of persons claiming interest in the  plots  of the appellant.  Their objections were dismissed.  They filed revisions against those orders.  The  revisions were pending when  the petition was heard by the High Court.   After  the decision of the High Court, the State Government has  issued a   notification  under  s.  6  of  the  Consolidation   Act canceling  the notification bringing the aforesaid  villages under  consolidation  operations.  But the  High  Court  has admitted  a  writ  petition of the  appellant  against  this notification  and has stayed the operation of the  notifica- tion. The  second reason assigned by the High Court for  rejecting the second argument of the appellant may be disposed offirst. It is clear  from  the  facts already  stated  that  the appellantdid raise at the proper time before the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority the argument that  the proceedings  under  the  Ceiling Act  should  remain  stayed during  consolidation operations.  Accordingly, we will  now proceed  to  examine  the correctness of  the  first  reason assigned  by the High Court.  Its plea before the  appellate authority  before  and  after  the  decision  in  the   writ petition,  in  effect was this: As  revisions  were  pending under  the Consolidation Act, its interest in the plots  was under  cloud.   It  might or might not be  held  to  be  the tenure-holder  of  all  or  some  of  the  plots.   If   the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were not stayed, it  would lose surplus land, and it might also lose some of the  plots included  in  its  ceiling area as a result  of  an  adverse decision  in the revisions under the Consolidation Act.   In plain  language, its argument, in the alternative, was  that it might not be the tenure-holder of all the plots. 256 Consolidation proceedings are started in a village by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government under s.  4 of   the  Consolidation  Act.   Section  5   specifies   the consequences  which  follow the issuance of  a  notification under  s.  4.  Sub-section  (1)  of  s.  5  states   certain consequences  with  which  we are  not  concerned  in this appeal.  Sub-section (2) is material for our purpose, and it materially reads as follows:               "Upon  such  publication of  the  notification               under   subsection  (2)  of  section   4   the               following further consequences shall ensue  in               the area to which the notification relates:               (a)   every  proceeding for the correction  of               records  and  every suit  and  proceedings  in               respect  of declaration of rights or  interest               in  any  land  lying  in  the  area,  or   for               declaration or adjudication of any other right               in regard to which proceedings can or ought to               be  taken under this Act, pending  before  any               court  or  authority  whether  of  the   first               instance or of appeal, reference, or revision,               shall, on an order being passed in that behalf               by  the  court or authority before  whom  such               suit or proceeding is pending stand abated.               Provided  further that on the issuance-  of  a               notification under sub-section (1) of  section               6 in respect of the said area or part thereof,               every such order in relation to the land lying               in   such  area  or  part......  shall   stand

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             vacated.                (b) such abatement shall be without prejudice               to  the  rights  of the  persons  affected  to               agitate  the right or interest in  dispute  in               the  said  suits  or  proceedings  before  the               appropriate  consolidation  authorities  under               and in accordance with the provisions of  this               Act and the rules thereunder." The Prescribed Authority acting under s. 10(2) and 12 of the Ceiling  Act  is  an authority within the  meaning  of  that expression in s. 5(2).  The proceeding before him will be  a proceeding  within the meaning of the said word in s.  5(2). But  the proceeding before him is not a proceeding  for  the correctness  of records or for ’declaration or  adjudication of  any  other right in regard to which proceedings  can  or ought  to  be taken’ under the Consolidation  Act.   So  the limited question to be considered is whether the  proceeding in  the  present case is on "in respect  of  declaration  of rights or interest in any land lying in the area." When  a tenure_holder voluntarily files a statement  of  his holdings  under s. 9, the proceeding before  the  Prescribed Authority  is  not of this kind, because  the  tenure-holder admits  that the holdings are his.  There is  ordinarily  no dispute  about any right or interest in the holdings  before the  Prescribed  Authority.  Again, when the  tenure  holder accepts  the  statement  sent  to  him  by  the   Prescribed Authority  under s. 10, there is no dispute with respect  to any  right  or  interest in land.  In  these  two  instances section  5(2) will not apply.  But where  the  tenure-holder does not voluntarily file a statement under s 9 and disputes that he is not the tenure-holder of all or some of the plots 257 included in the statement prepared under s. 10, there ensues a  dispute about a right or interest in land.  According  to s. 32 of the Ceiling Act, the State Government is a party to every  proceeding.  So in such a case there is an  adversary proceeding  before the Prescribed Authority between him  and the Government.  The Prescribed Authority will decide  under s. 12 whether the tenure-holder has any right or interest in all  or some of the plots if the Prescribed Authority  finds that  he  has  no right or interest in all or  some  of  the plots,_  he  will  exclude those plots  from  the  statement served on him under s. 10 and determine the ceiling area and surplus land without taking into account the excluded plots. This  is  the, very question which is in issue  before;  the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act.   Under s. 10, of the Consolidation Act-the Consolidation Officer is called  upon to adjudicate upon various claims to the  plots falling within the consolidation area.  Take this particular case.   Admittedly  a  large number of  persons  have  filed claims   to   the  plots  of  the   appellant   before   the Consolidation   Authorities.   Their  claims   are   pending consideration in revisions under s. 48 of the  Consolidation Act.  If their revisions are allowed, a large, area of  land included  in  the statement under S. 10 of the  Ceiling  Act will   have  to  be  excluded  from  consideration  by   the Prescribed Authority.  It is therefore obvious that the non- stay of proceedings under the Ceiling Act would cause  great hardship to the appellant.  Counsel for, the respondent  has submitted  that  all those claimants  before  the,  revising authority  under the Consolidation Act can be  impleaded  as parties in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act..  Assuming in  argument  that they can be so  impleaded,  the  question still remains whether the proceedings under the Ceiling  Act can  go, on while proceedings with respect to any  right  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

interest  in the plots of the appellant  are  simultaneously going  on before the consolidation authorities.  As soon  as those claimants are impleaded in the proceeding under s.  12 of  the  Ceiling  Act, the proceeding  will  more  pointedly become  a proceeding "in respect of declaration of right  or interest  in  any land" under s. 5(2) of  the  Consolidation Act. It is true that the purposes of the two Acts are  different. Under the Ceiling Act, the ceiling area and surplus land  of a tenure-holder are determined; under the Consolidation Act, the  holdings  of  a tenure holder  are  consolidated.   But neither   purpose  may  in  a  large  number  of  cases   be accomplished without first determining the right or interest of various claimants in the plots.  So the crucial  question for decision is as to whether the Prescribed Authority under the  Ceiling  Act or the Consolidation authority  under  the Consolidation  Act  has  got a  preemptive  jurisdiction  to determine  rival  rights and interests in the  land  of  the appellant.  We have already shown that the proceeding  under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act is a proceeding within the  purview of  s.  5(2) of the Consolidation Act.  Section  49  of  the Consolidation Act materially provides :               "Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any               other  law  for the time being in  force,  the               declaration  and  adjudication  of  rights  of               tenure-holders in respect of land lying in  an               area, for which a notification has been issued               under  subsection  (2) of s. 4 ....  shall  be               done in accordance with the provisions of this               Act. . . . " 258 Obviously the purpose of the non-obstante clause in s. 49 is to  exclude the operation of any other overlapping Act.   So the  non-obstante clause would exclude the operation of  the Ceiling Act while the Consolidation Act is in operation in a particular  area.  Section 5(2) and s. 49  indicate  clearly that  the proceedings in the instant case are to  be  abated under  s.  5(2).   Section  48A  of  the  Consolidation  Act expressly  saves the jurisdiction of the Custodian  of  the Evacuee  properties  to decide claims to the, plots  of  the evacuees during consolidation operations.  The absence of  a like  provision  in  relation to  the  jurisdiction  of  the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act lends support  to our inference. We  do not think that the construction of s. 5(2) should  be influenced by the argument that if the proceedings under  s. 12 of the Ceiling Act are abated, the appellant would retain lands in its hands permanently or for a long time.  As  soon as  the  consolidation operations are closed  on  the  valid issue of a notification under s. 6 or s. 52, the  proceeding under  the Ceiling Act may be resumed.  In any event, it  is plain  from  the language of ss. 5 (2), 48A and  49  of  the Consolidation Act that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot continue in the circumstances of this case as long as the consolidation operations are going on. As  in  a  fresh  petition the High  Court  has  stayed  the operation   of   the  notification  under  s.   6   of   the Consolidation  Act, it is of no ;avail to the respondent  in this. appeal. The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court  is set aside.  The writ petition filed by the appellant in  the High  Court is allowed in toto.  The order of  the  District Judge,   dated  January  31,  1964,  is  quashed   and   the proceedings  under the Ceiling Act are abated under s.  5(2) of the Consolidation Act.  The proceedings under the Ceiling

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

Act  may be resumed after the issue of a notification  under s.   52  or  after  the  dismissal  of  the  writ   petition challenging   the   notification   under  s.   6.   In   the circumstances  of  this case, there will be no order  as  to costs. S.B.W. Appeal allowed. 2 5 9