RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 1104, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 1104 
A 
RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. 
V. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3375-3376 of 2005) 
B 
APRIL 21, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
c Act, 1960: s.10 - In land ceiling proceedings, Prescribed 
Authority declared 5446 acres to be surplus land by order 
dated 31.5.1962 and held appellant entitled to certain 
compensation - However, the said order was reviewed and 
appellant was held not entitled to any compensation as he 
o was not the Bhumidar - High Court allowed the appellant's 
writ petition and held that order dated 31. 5. 1962 had attained 
finality and it was no longer open to the Authority to 
determine as to whether the appellant was tenure holder 
or not -
Meanwhile Ceiling Act was amended and 
E permissible extent of land to be held was reduced to 18 
acres-By order dated 29.11.1976, the Prescribed Authority 
declared 1067.53 acres of the land of the appellant in two 
villages to be excess and held him entitled to 18. 03 acres 
of land and this order was not challenged by appellant- Writ 
F petition for correction of revenue records and compensation 
- Single judge of High Court directed authorities to correct 
the revenue records, pay compensation and hand over 
possession - On appeal, the Division Bench of High Court 
held that order dated 29.11. 1976 was an independent order 
G and not an order made as a consequence to or to give effect 
to order
dated 30. 7.1976 and as order dated 29.1.1976 was 
not challenged, same had to be given effect to - On appeal, 
held: Once it is held that the appellant came in possession 
H 
1104
RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF 
1105 
UTTAR PRADESH 
of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis of lease treating A 
the appellant as a tenant, the appellant cannot be held to 
be a tenure holder - Hence, in any circumstance the 
appellant would be entitled to retain the land to the extent 
of 18 acres which is the ceiling limit- No reason to interfere 
with impugned order. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Indisputably, the appellant came in 
possession of the land by virtue of lease dated c 
25.01.1951. By the said lease deed about 8874 bighas 
of land was transferred by way of permanent lease. 
Before the lease was executed, the U.P. Zamidari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into effect 
from 24.01.1951 putting a restriction on the transfer of o 
land and, further all transfers made after 01.07 .1948 
were held not to be recognised. Hence, neither the lease 
deed nor any authority would have recognised the 
appellant as a tenure holder. Moreover, the lease of the 
land was granted to the appellant on payment of rent E 
and on the terms and conditions contained in the said 
lease deed. Admittedly, the appellant was permitted to 
retain 428 bighas of land spread in three villages while 
determining the surplus land under Section 12 of the 
Act. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of ceiling on Land F 
Holdings Act, 1960 was amended with effect from 
08.06.1973 whereby the ceiling area of the land was 
reduced from 40 acres to 18.03 acres. As a
result, a 
fresh ceiling proceeding was initiated under the 
amended Act. Taking into consideration the entire facts G 
of the case and the sequence of events the High Court 
came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to 
18.03 acres of land in terms of order dated 29.11.1976 
passed in the ceiling proceeding redetermining the H
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A surplus area held by the Company after amendment 
came into effect in the Act. [Paras 14 to 16] [1112-F-G; 
1113-E-H; 1114-A-C] 
2. Once it is held that the appellant came in 
B possession of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis 
of lease treating the appellant as a tenant, the appellant 
cannot be held to be a tenure holder. Hence, without 
going into other questions it can safely be concluded 
that in any circumstance the appellant would be entitled 
C to retain the land to the extent of 18 acres which is the 
ceiling limit. Hence, the prescribed authority is under 
an obligation to give an opportunity to the appellant to 
exercise its option as to which land it opts to retain to 
the extent of 18 acres and not more than that. [Para 18] 
D [1114-0-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3375-3376 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2003 of the 
E Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 
Special Appeal Nos. 545 and 550 of 2000. 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Saurab Agarwal, Sansriti Pathak, 
Ashish Tiwari (For Ruby Singh Ahuja) for the Appellant. 
F 
P. N. Misra, Sanjay Kr. Visen, Abhishek Chaudhary, Anil 
Kumar Jha, Vinay Garg for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1.These appeals by special leave are 
G directed against the judgment and order dated 12Lh 
December, 2003 of the Allahabad High Court whereby 
Division Bench of the High Court allowed
the special appeals 
preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and set aside order 
dated 17.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil 
H Miscellaneous Writ Peitition, who directed the authorities to
RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF 
1107 
UTTAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
correct the revenue record, pay compensation and deliver A 
the possession of the disputed land to the appellant. 
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the name of the 
appellant was recorded as Bhumidar of various lands in 
Nagina Tehsil. In the proceedings initiated under the U.P. s 
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 
'Act of 1960'), the appellant was served with a notice under 
Section 10 and the Prescribed Authority declared an area 
of 5446 acres to be surplus land vide order dated 31.05.1962 
and the appellant was held to be entitled to certain amount C 
of compensation. However, later on in 1976, on the 
application moved by the Collector, Bijnor, the order dated 
31.05.1962 was reviewed and set aside by the Prescribed 
Authority and the appellant was held to be not entitled to 
any compensation as the appellant was not the Bhumidar D 
and the notice issued to it under Section 10 was erroneous. 
The appeal filed by the aggrieved appellant was dismissed 
by the District Court as not maintainable. 
3. The appellant, thereafter, moved the High Court by E 
way of writ petition praying therein for issuance of 
appropriate writ for quashing the orders of the Prescribed 
Authority as also that of District Court. Learned Single Judge 
of the High Court allowed writ petition of the appellant with 
costs holding that the order passed by the Prescribed F 
Authority on
31.5.1962 had become final and it was no 
longer open to the said Authority to determine as to whether 
the appellant was a tenure holder or not. The appeal by 
special leave (being Civil Appeal No.304 7 of 1983) preferred 
by the State Government before the Supreme Court was G 
dismissed vide order dated 15.1.1996 for non-prosecution. 
4. Meanwhile, the Ceiling Act was amended and the 
permissible extent of land to be held was reduced to 18 
acres. Notice dated 7 .10.1976 was issued to the appellant H
1108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 4 S.C.R. 
A and vide order dated 29.11.1976, the Prescribed Authority 
declared 1067.53 acres of land of the appellant in two 
villages to be excess and this order was not challenged by 
the appellant. Notification dated 16.2.1966 was issued under 
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act whereby lands of the 
B appellant in other villages were proposed to be declared as 
reserved forest and vide notification dated 27.7.1970 under 
Section 20 of the Forest Act, such lands were declared as 
reserved forest area. These notifications were also not 
challenged by the appellant. 
c 
5. After the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred 
by the State Government, the appellant approached the 
authorities for correction of the revenue record and payment 
of compensation in accordance with order dated 31.05.1962. 
D However, as the request was not heeded to, the appellant 
filed a writ petition for complying with the High Court 
judgment dated 05.07.1982 and paying compensation of 
Rs.4, 19,484/- with interest from 1962 onwards, for returning 
possession of the land and for correcting the revenue entries 
E in favour of the appellant in compliance with the orders 
passed in 1962. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, 
vide judgment dated 17.2.2000, directed the authorities to 
correct the revenue record, pay compensation and hand 
F over the possession of the property. 
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single 
Judge of the High Court, the
State Government preferred 
an appeal through the Collector who was the Prescribed 
Authority and another appeal through the Chief Conservator 
G of Forest. The appellant contested the appeals on the 
ground that the order dated 29.11.1976 was based on the 
order dated 30.07.1976 which was set aside by the High 
Court vide order dated 05.07.1982 and hence order dated 
H 29.11.1976 was not required to be challenged separately.
RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF 
1109 
UTIAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
The notice dated 07.10.1976 preceding the order dated A 
29.11.1976 was also alleged to have been sent to Nagina 
Tehsil and not at the registered office of the appellant. It was 
also contended that the Notifications under Section 4 and 
Section 20 of the Forest Act were a nullity as the statutory 
procedure was not complied with and as the land was B 
declared to be a holding of the company vide order dated 
31.05.1962 and such lands were not permitted to be 
declared as part of a reserved forest in view of Section 3 of 
the Forest Act. The Forest Department was alleged to be 
bound by the order dated 31.05.1962 as it was part of the C 
State of U.P. and had no separate identity and the 
maintainability of the appeal filed by it was challenged on 
the said ground. It was argued that the Notifications under 
Sections 4 and 20 could not have been produced before the D 
court for the first time. 
7. The Division Bench of the High Court, allowing the 
appeals preferred by the State, held that order dated 
29.11.1976 was an independent order made in pursuance 
of notice dated 07.10.1976 re-determining the surplus area E 
after the Ceiling Act was amended in 1973 and 1976 and 
not an order made as a consequence to or to give effect to 
the order dated 30.07.1976. The High Court held that as 
order dated 29.11.1976 was not challenged, the same had 
F 
to be given effect to and considered· while making
any 
correction in the revenue record, even if it was made without 
valid service of notice. The High Court further held that the 
Forest Department was a part of the State Government and 
bound by orders passed in relation to other State G 
Departments. It was further held that the Court had the 
power to permit the production of additional evidence in 
appeal and held that such power had to be exercised herein 
for doing complete justice between the parties as the Forest 
Department was not a party to the writ petition and hence H
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A could not bring the proceedings under the Forest Act to the 
notice of the Court and as the Notifications under the Forest 
Act were required to be taken on record as they had attained 
finality. 
B 
8. The contention that the Notification under Section 4 
could not have been issued in relation to a holding was 
rejected by the High Court on the ground that the same 
would render the purpose of inviting objections under 
Section 6 and holding enquiry under Section 7 unnecessary. 
C Having not made any objection under Section 6 of the Forest 
Act, the rights of the appellant were held to have been 
extinguished under Section 9. The Notifications under 
Sections 4 and 20 were also held liable to be given effect 
to as a decree of the civil court as the same had not been 
D challenged by the appellant despite being aware of the 
same. The appellant had mentioned the notifications in the 
memorandum of writ petition (being W.P. No.£3625/2000) 
wherein the appellant had sought relief based on a purported 
assurance by the Forest Settlement Officer to issue 
E corrigendum for excluding the land from the category of 
reserved forest area. However, this writ petition was noted 
to have been dismissed as being premature vide judgment 
dated 25.05.2000. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of 
F the High Court, the Company has preferred present appeals 
by special leave. 
9. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the
appellant submitted that the impugned 
order passed by the High Court is contrary to the settled 
G principles of law. While elaborating the case of the 
appellant, learned counsel submitted that once the order 
dated 31.5.1962 passed by the Prescribed Authority had 
become final and binding between the parties, every order 
H running contrary to the said order would have lost its force.
RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF 
1111 
UTTAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
According to the learned counsel, the order dated A 
29.11.1976 and Notification dated 27. 7 .1970 issued under 
the Indian Forest Act automatically lost its force in the light 
of the judgment rendered by the High Court on 5. 7.1982. 
Learned counsel further contended that the High Court has 
failed to consider that the order dated 30.7.1976 passed in 
B 
review petition by the Prescribed Authority has been set 
aside by the High Court and the Civil Appeal was dismissed. 
Learned counsel further contended that the High Court in 
its earlier order dated 5. 7 .1982 has categorically held that 
the rights of the appellant have been finally determined by C 
the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.5.1962. There 
cannot be any dispute that the order dated 31.5.1962 
attained its finality after the challenge of the order by the 
State attained finality up to this Court. 
D 
10. Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel assailing the 
procedure adopted in the ceiling proceedings, submitted that 
the order passed by the Authority without affording 
reasonable opportunity of hearing is null and void and cannot 
be sustained in law. The declaration issued under the Indian E 
Forest Act declaring the land as forest is also wholly without 
jurisdiction. 
11. Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for 
the respondent, on the other hand submitted that as a matter F 
of fact out of the land which
already stood vested in the State 
pursuant to U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
1950 (for short, "Act of 1950"), a portion measuring 8874 
bighas was transferred to the appellant on the basis of lease 
deed dated 25.1.1951. Learned counsel submitted that no G 
scrutiny or examination was done by the Tehsildar, Nagina 
before passing the order dated 28.4.1954 whereby the 
name of the appellant was entered in the khatauni. 
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the H
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31. 5 .1962 declared 
5466 acres of land as surplus land under the ceiling 
proceedings. The said order dated 31.5.1962 was passed 
by the Authority without adjudicating as to whether the 
appellant is a tenure holder in terms of the lease deed. 
B Learned counsel submitted that the ex-zamindar after the 
vesting of the entire land received compensation for nine 
villages and bonds to that effect were also dispatched to the 
said landlord. 
C 
13. Justifying the correctness of the proceeding and the 
Notification under the Indian Forest Act, learned counsel 
submitted that the said order and notification declaring the 
land in question as forest land were never challenged by 
the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent-State filed 
D application seeking review of the order dated 31. 5.1962 on 
the ground that the appellant was never the tenure holder 
and Bhumidar of the land declared surplus. 
14. Much stress has been given by the learned counsel 
E for the appellant on the notice dated 8.01.1961 issued under 
Section 10(2) of the U.P. Act and the order dated 31.05.1962 
whereby the prescribed authority treated the appellant as a 
tenure holder. We do not find any force in the submission 
of the learned counsel. Indisputably, the appellant came in 
F possession of the land by virtue of the lease dated 
25.01.1951 executed by Raja Harishchandra Singh which 
came into effect from
01.07.1951. By the said lease deed 
about 8874 bighas of land was transferred by way of 
permanent lease. The relevant portion of the lease deed is 
G extracted hereinbelow:-
" ... In consideration of the rent hereinafter reserved and 
on the covenants, stipulations and conditions 
hereinafter contained and on the part of lease paid, 
H 
observed and performed, the lessor doth hereby
RAMGARH FARMS AND IND. LTD. v. STATE OF 
1113 
UTTAR PRADESH [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
demise with the lessee the said lands hereinafter A 
particularly described in the Schedule hereinafter 
written -- with all surface rights, easements and 
appurtenances whatsoever belonging or in anywE,Y 
appurteneancing thereto as and by way of a permanent 
lease to hold the said land as hereditary tenants as 
B 
meant under Uttar Pradesh tenancy Act (Act XVII of 
1939) subject to such conditions (Ramgarh Farm & 
Industries Ltd. Sadri Narain Singh, Director, RamgarlJ. 
Farm & Industries Ltd., Sindh Nath Singh, Director for 
Ramgarh Farm & Industries Ltd, Ram Narqain Singh 
C 
& Co., B.N. Singh, Managing agents Hari Chandra Raj 
Singh) [page 41 conditions, restrictions and limitations 
as imposed uinder these present yielding and paying 
therefore, the rent hereinafter specified provided D 
however that this lease deed shall be deemed to have 
commenced on and from the 1 fil day of fas Ii year 1358 
corresponding to the 1fil day of July, 1951 ... " 
(Emphasis given) 
E 
15. It will not be out of place to mention here that before 
the lease was executed in 1951, the Act of 1950 was 
enacted and the said Act came into effect from 24.01.1951 
putting a restriction on the transfer of land and, fu1iher all 
transfers made after 01.07.1948 were held not to be 
F 
recognised. Hence, neither the lease deed nor any authority 
would have recognised the appellant as a tenure holder. 
Moreover, the lease of
the land was granted to the appellant 
on payment of rent and on the terms and conditions 
contained in the said lease deed. 
G 
16. Be that as it may, admittedly, the appellant was 
permitted to retain 428 bighas of land spread in three villages 
while determining the surplus land under Sec11on 12 of the 
Act. It is also not in dispute that Act of 1960 was amended H
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A with effect from 08.06.1973 whereby the ceiling area of the 
land was reduced from 40 acres to 18.03 acres. As a result, 
a fresh ceiling proceeding was initiated under the amended 
Act. 
B 
17. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case 
and the sequence of events the High Court came to the 
conclusion that the appellant is entitled to 18.03 acres of 
land in terms of the order dated 29.11.1976 passed in the 
ceiling proceeding redetermining the surplus area held by 
C the Company after amendment came into effect in the Act. 
18. We have given our anxious consideration to the 
matter and in our view once it is held that the appellant came 
in possession of the land from the ex-landlord on the basis 
D of lease treating the appellant as a tenant, the appellant 
cannot be held to be a tenure holder. Hence, without going 
into other questions it can safely be concluded that in any 
circumstance the appellant would be entitled to retain the 
land to the extent of 18 acres which is the ceiling limit. 
E Hence, the prescribed authority is under an obligation to give 
an opportunity to the appellant to exercise its option as to 
which land it opts td retain to the extent of 18 acres and not 
more than that. 
F 
19. For the reason aforesaid, we do not find any reason 
to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High 
Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with the 
observation and direction made hereinabove.
G Devika Gujral 
Appeals dismissed.