Case: Vinod Kumar Vs. S The Commissioner &amp; Others

. Predecessors - in-interest of Yashvir Singh (Respondent No.3), Satvir Singh (Respondent No.4) and Jagdishpal Singh (Respondent No.5) in Civil Appeal Nos. 424-429 of 1997 had executed a lease in 1936 in favour of Delhi Cloth & General Mills (hereinafter referred to as DCM). The lease was for a period of 25 years in respect of 375 bighas of land. When U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "ZA Act") came into force, a compensation statement was prepared under Chapter IXA of Z.A. Act and DCM was held to be Adhiwasi of this lad. The original land owners, namely, predecessors-in-interest of R3, R4 and R5 filed objection to this and claimed Bhumidari right over the entire land. Their plea was initially accepted but the Compensation Officer vide his dated 3.1.1957 allowed the appeal filed by DCM and against that appellate Order, the land owners went in appeal before the Board of Revenue, but their claim was rejected.3. After the commencement of the Ceiling Act, the land covered by the lease deed was sought to be declared as surplus land in the hands, of DCM. The land-owners claimed Bhumidari right over the said land. Their claim was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. They went in appeal and the Appellate Authority held that DCM had only Asami right. These orders were challenged before the High Court in Writ Petitioners and the matter was remitted to the lower Appellate Court. The writ petitions were again filed against the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court and the matter was decided by the High Court on 28.11.1969. Against that judgment, special appeals were filed and it was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the predecessors-in-interest of respondent no.3, 4 & 5 had got Bhumidari right over 142 Bighas out of total land which was given on lease to DCM. Their claim regarding the rest of the land was rejected. The land owners thereafter filed Special Leave Petition before this Court and this Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh decision. On 23.9.1987, the matter was decided afresh holding that the predecessors-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 3, 4, & 5 had Bhumidari right over 142-17-2Â½ bighas of land and for the rest of the land the DCM was declared to have Adhiwasi and Sirdar rights. Against that decision, the matter was again taken up in appeal before this Court by Special leave and all the parties to that proceedings ultimately accepted the position that the Respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 herein who are the successors-in-interest of the original land owners are entitled to have rights over 72.50 bighas of disputed land. An extent of 8-7-0 bighas of land was excluded and 64 bighas of land was directed to be put in possession of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and Prescribed Authority was directed to determine the surplus land of these respondents. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court is asassertion of the State of Uttar Pradesh that most of the lands in dispute have been taken over by the State as ceiling surplus land is not disputed. On account of the fact that ceiling surplus had been determined in the hands of the respondent-company and our present order holding that the appellants have interest in regard to about 64 bighas of land out of the land in dispute, a fresh determination of the surplus has to be done. The appellant should be entitled to be put into possession of the lands out of 64 bighas which would be within the ceiling limit. We, therefore, direct that the competent authority shall proceed to determine the ceiling surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 within three months from today and once that is done, the appellants shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the area coming within the ceiling limit and the balance shall vest in the Uttar Pradesh Government. The competent authority shall forward a copy of his determination within two weeks after three months to the Registry of this court.Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the prescribed authority passed an order on 11.10.1990 and held that 14 bighas out of 64 bighas of land are to be treated as surplus land in the hands of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Appeal was filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority held that only an extent of 2-2-10. 1/3 bighas of land could be treated as surplus land in the hands of Jagdishpal Singh (R5).5. Against this order, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed three Writ Petitions. Two other persons, namely, Omvati and Shastri Avas Samiti Ltd. had also filed two separate writ petitions. The surplus lands taken over by the Government were allotted to some persons. They too filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. Certain lands were given to Meerut Development Authority. As the Appellate Authority had modified the order of the Prescribed Authority by reducing surplus area of the land, the Meerut Development Authority also filed three writ petitions and by the impugned Judgment, all these writ petitions were disposed of holding of the Appellate Authority was correct. That decision is challenged before us.

Court's reasoning:
In the instant case, the predecessor-in-interests of R3, R4 and R5 had executed a lease deed in favour of DCM in respect of entire 375 bighas of land in 1936. DCM claimed Adhiwasi right and the predecessor-in-interest of these respondents claimed Bhumidari right over this property. After prolonged litigation, the High Court decided on 23.9.1987 that the predecessors-in-interest of R3, R4 and R5 had got Bhumidari right over 142/17/2Â½ bighas of land and for the rest of the land, DCM was declared to have Adhiwasi and Sirdar rights. This decision of the High Court was challenged by Respondent Nos. 3, 4, & 5 and ultimately this Court held on 23.11.1989 that they were entitled to have further right over 72 bighas more of the disputed land. Excluding 8/7/0 bighas of land in possession of allottees, this Court directed that 64 bighas of land should be put in possession of Respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. This Court also directed for re-determination of the surplus land of these respondents. The rights of Respondent nos, 3, 4, & 5 over 64 bighas of land were crystallized only after the decision of this Court. Till such time, these respondents had been claiming right over the property of 64 bighas of land but the State was opposing their plea. It is also pertinent to note that the State all along contended that this was the property having Adhiwasi right for the DCM. It is also important to note that DCM was held to be holding this land including the 64 bighas of land was excess area was taken away from them under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Only by virtue of the Judgment dated 23.11.1989, Respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 acquired right over this property. Therefore, the question for consideration is, whether the decision of this Court dated 23.11.1989 could be construed as a decree or order by which the tenure - holders, namely, Respondent nos. 3, 4, & 5 acquired right over this property.15. The plea of the appellants is that, right from the beginning, these respondents were claiming right over this property, therefore, it must be held that they were holding this land. Admittedly, these respondents were not in possession of this land. They got right to possession of this land by virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 23.11.1989. It is only thereafter it can be said that the tenure-holder began to hold the land. As pointed out by the High Court, the land-holders became tenure-holders of the land of 64 bighas only on and from 23.11.1989 on which date they got title coupled with the right to get possession by virtue of the order of this Court. Till such time, all authorities including High Court held that Respondent nos. 3, 4, & 5 were not entitled to have any right over this property. Therefore, applying Section 29 of the Act, the re-determination of the ceiling area is to be done with reference to the date of the Judgment of this Court, i.e. 23.11.1989. We find no reason to discharge with the decision of the Division Bench in this regard. The appeal is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. The other set of appeals are filed by Meerut Development Authority who had been allotted this land by the State for development. As the land comes within the ceiling area, the same will have to be returned to the Respondent nos. 3, 4, & 5. The High Court has passed appropriate orders and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.16. The appeals filed by the allottees of land are also without any merits. Their allotments were cancelled for various reasons. They were not entitled to get allotment of these lands and the reasons are elaborately given in the Judgment of the Division Bench. Some of the allottees were employed and they did not come within the preferential category.