Case: Malkhan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

2. Malkhan Singh,held 66.11 acres of agricultural land in the revenue estate of Siauri, district Jhansi, U. P. He failed to submit a correct statement in respect of his holdings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1960 (for short, the Act), within the time mentioned in the notice published under Section 9 of the Act. Consequently, the prescribed authority issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act and sent along with it a statement of the area proposed to be declared surplus. In response to this notice, thefiled objections. On of his pleas was that there were 14 members in his family including his sons, grandson and granddaughters and all of them were joint in home, hearth and estate, and that consequently there was no surplus area with him. On this point the authority framed this issue :Are there 14 members in landholders family, if so its effects ?3. The authority found that the four sons of Malkhan Singh, namely, Murari Lal, Lakhan Lal, Kishan Lal and Ganeshi Lal, werein their own separate rights, and consequently, in view of the explanation to Section 3(c) of the Act, they could not be deemed as members of Malkhans family. The authority further held thattheir wives and issues would also naturally be considered to be in the family of their husbands and father and would therefore be excluded from objectors family.After excluding the sons and their wives and sons sons, the authority held that there were only two members of the family of Malkhan Singh who were alive on January 3, 1961. Accordingly he negatived his objection and declared an area of 25.70 acres as surplus land with him.4. Against this order, dated June 29, 1963 of the authority thepreferred an appeal to the District Judge under Section 133 of the Act. On this issue, the District Judge also held that the four sons of Malkhan Singh werein their own separate rights, and in view of the definition of the term family in the Act, this circumstance was conclusive proof of their separation from the family "even though under Hindu Law such separation may not be recognised in face of this legal position". Referring to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, he saidthat the evidence to the effect of proving jointness is of unimpeachable character, has no significance. The said oral or documentary evidence cannot mitigate the effect of the objectors sons having separate holdings in their own rights.5. Inter alia in these premises, he affirmed the findings of the authority and dismissed Malkhan Singhs appeal with a slight reduction in the area declared surplus.

Court's reasoning:
16. The first part of(1) of Section 19 of the Amendment Act is susceptible of two interpretations. First, that all proceedings whatever relating to the determination of surplus land under the principal Act, pending before any court or authority, including the High Court and this Court at the time of commencement of this Act, shall abate. Second, that proceedings for determination of surplus land under the principal Act pending before the District Judge or the prescribed authority, only, at the time of commencement of this Act shall abate. In this view, the words "any Court" occurring in the first part of(1) of Section 19 will not include the High Court or this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.17. It is not necessary for us to express any final opinion as to which of these two constructions is correct because the scheme and other provisions of the Amendment Act have, in effect, rendered the earlier proceedings infructuous.18. The latter part of(1) of Section 19 gives a mandate to the prescribed authority to start proceedings for determination of the ceiling area under the principal Act, afresh, by the issue of a notice under Section 9(1).(2) of Section 9 of the principle Act, a modified an inserted by Section 4 of the Amendment Act (extracted above), requires the prescribed authority to call upon everyholding land in excess of the ceiling area to submit to him within 30 days of the publication of notice a statement referred to in its(1).19. The proviso to(1) of Section 19 of the Amendment Act does not detract from the requirement of determining over again the surplus land/ceiling area of a landholder in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. The proviso is in the nature of a procedural provision. It, in terms, prescribed the manner in which determination of ceiling area is to be made. Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso fix the stages and sequence for such determination. Clause (a) read with the main body of thewhich, in terms, refers to Section 9, shows that at the first stage, the ceiling area is to be determined de novo in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as it stood immediately before the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 1973. It is only after this has been done, that the stage for going over to clause (b) is reached.20. If this be the correct import of Section 19(1)as it appears to bethe proceedings for the determination of the surplus land/ceiling area of Malkhan Singh will have to be taken afresh, under the principal Act from the very start after a notice under Section 9 of that Act. This means that all the earlier proceedings for determination of his surplus land before the prescribed authority and the District Judge have become infructuous, rendering, in consequence, the appeal before us, also futile.