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

PETITIONER: M/S. GANGESHWAR LIMITED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1995

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6)  84        JT 1995 (7)   584  1995 SCALE  (5)448

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The appellant  herein, is  a Sugar Mill situated in the State of  Uttar pradesh.  For its  activity it  required and came to  own large  tracts of  land -  some  of  which  were agricultural. Those brought the appellant within the grip of the duo  statutes i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land  Reforms Act, 1950 and the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. On 1.6.71, i.e. prior to the  coming into  force of  the amendment  to the Ceiling Act, the  appellant purchased  a little  over 31  bighas  of agricultural land.  On the  day when  the  Ceiling  Act,  as amended on  8.6.73,  became  applicable,  the  area  of  the appellant-mill added  with the  purchased area,  constituted its holding. The Prescribed Authority, under the Ceiling Act was to  determine the ceiling area of the appellant and take out land  which could  be surplus. The appellant, before the Prescribed Authority  could do  anything in the matter, made an application  on 6.3.75  to the  Assistant Collector under the Zamindari  Act  for  granting  it  a  certificate  under Section 143  of that  Act with regard to the area purchased, so that  it could  cease to  be agricultural  land  for  the purpose of  the Ceiling Act. That application was allowed by the Assistant  Collector on 17.3.75. On that basis, when the ceiling area  of the  appellant was  being determined by the Prescribed Authority  under Section  11 of  the Ceiling Act, the appellant projected the certificate under Section 143 of the  Zamindari   Act  towards   seeking  exemption   of  the appellant’s purchased area under Section 6(a) of the Ceiling Act. It  provides that  land used  for industrial  purposes, (that is  to say, for purposes of manufacture, preservation, storage or  processing of  goods), and in respect of which a declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, subsists, shall not be taken into  consideration for  the purposes of determing the ceiling area  applicable to,  and the  surplus area land of,

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

the tenure-holder.  The appellant projected, that right from the date  of purchase,  the said  area had put to industrial use and,  therefore, the  declaration under Section 143 even though obtained  on 17.3.75  related back to the date of the sale, and  if not,  at least to the date of the commencement of the  Ceiling Act  i.e. 8.6.73.  The Prescribed  Authority accepting the  explanation of  the  appellant  exempted  the purchased area  from the  purview of such determination, but the District  Judge held  to the contrary, to which the High Court, in  a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, put its seal of approval. Hence this appeal.      Mr. Sunil  Gupta, learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant has  made tremendous effort need assail the orders of the High Court in claiming that Section 6, of the Ceiling Act which  has a  non-obstante clause,  overrides any  other provision in  the Act,  inclusive of  Section 5,  whereunder ceiling of a tenure-holder is required to be reckoned on the situation as  existing on  8.6.73. According to him, Section 6, though  operating  from  that  date,  requires  that  the declaration under  Section 143  should be  subsisting on the date when  the ceiling  area applicable to the tenure-holder was being  determined by  the Prescribed  Authority. On that basis, it  is contended  by him  that on  that date i.e. the date of  determination, the  appellant had  a declaration in its favour  to the  effect that  the land was put to use for industrial purpose.      We would  have appreciated this attractive argument had there not  been two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in the way,  which are  to the  contrary. These  are - State of Uttar Pradesh  vs. Har  Bilas Goel and others 1978 ALL. L.J. 1024 and Jai Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1978 ALL.  L.J. 1031.  The understanding of Section 6 of the Ceiling Act  by  the  High  Court  reflected  in  these  two decisions, when  none has  been  placed  before  us  to  the contrary, would  require upholding on the principle of stare decises,  for   if  we   go  to  reinterpret  the  provision contrarily, it would upset the seteled position in the State in so  far as  this area  of law  is  concerned.  Therefore, necessity of  certainty and  cold prudence  requires  us  to uphold the  orders of  the High Court, all the more when the author of  its judgment  is no  other than  the Hon’ble M.P. Mehrotra J,  who gave  a well  considered and  well reasoned judgment in Jai Ram Singh’s case supra. Years later, so sure was the  Hon’ble Judge of the soundness of the view that the said precedent  was not  even adverted  to  by  him  in  the judgment under appeal. Apparently, by then, the views of the High Court  in that  regard seemed  to have been crystalized and applied  in lot  many cases  that under Section 6(a), in order to  obtain exemption the land must be shown not merely to be used for industrial purposes, but there should also be a subsisting certificate under Section 143 in relation to it on the appointed date.      For the  foregoing reasons,  we dismiss this appeal and leave the  orders of  the High  Court uninterfered  with. No costs.