Case: Ravindra Singh Vs. Phool Singh and Another

3. Respondent Phool Singh filed a declaration of his agricultural holding as required by and under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. After an appropriate inquiry, the Prescribed Authority determined his holding. According to the said determination, he was holding surplus land to the extent of 8.26 acres of irrigated land. While determining his holding, it is necessary to mention, the lands transferred by him in favour of the appellant Revindra Singh and his wife Smt. Kamla Devi under sale deeds dated5 (in respect of 6 acres 66 decimals of land) and dated4. When the stage of surrender of surplus land arrived, respondent Phool Singh sought to surrender land which was transferred in favour of the appellant and his wife, to which the Prescribed Authority did not agree on the ground that it was a transferred land. Against the saide of land surrendered by him, Phool Singh filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on. Phool Singh carried the matter to this Court by way of W. P. No. 4975 of 1979 which was dismissed by this Court on1 under the following order"Special leave petition dismissed but the petitioner will be entitled to choice in respect of plots forming ther of the sale deed. "

Court's reasoning:
6. A combined reading ofn (6) of Section 5 and clause (d) of the proviso to SectionA yields the following position (insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of this appeal)(a) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a, any transfer of land made after1 shall be ignored and such transferred land shall be included in the holding of the transferor except where such transfer is saved by the proviso ton (6) of Section 5;(b) In the matter of surrender, however, the Prescribed Authority is entitled to insist that ther surrender land which is not ther of transfer referred to in Section 5(6);(c) If, however, surrender of surplus land by ther is not possible or feasible without including the transferred land, then the Prescribed Authority will accept such surrender, in which event transfer of such land shall be deemed to be null and void;(d) Where the Prescribed Authority accepts the surrender of transferred land, the transferee is entitled to compensation and other rights as are provided inThe object of the above provisions is quite clear and consistent. Any transfer effected after1 shall be ignored for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the, but in the matter of surrender, the Government does not want, as far as possible, to accept surrender of transferred land. This may be for the reason that acceptance of surrender of transferred land is likely to lead to complications and disputes; the Government wants to accept the surrender of lands which are free of any such controversy. But if that does not prove possible, the Government will accept the surrender land even, in which event the transfer of such land shall be treated as null and void so as to vest clear title in the Government. The transferee of a land so surrendered is entitled to claim the compensation money and other rights mentioned ine (i) of clause (d)7. In the light of the above provisions, the Authorities ought to have examined the offer of surrender made by the respondent, Phool Singh in accordance therewith. He must be asked to surrender lands which are not ther of transfer. Only where the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that surrender of surplus land is not possible without including the transferred land, will he accept the surrender land, to the extent necessarywith the necessary consequences flowing therefrom. The High Court and Authorities under the Act, however, have not followed this course because they felt that the order of this Court dated1 entitles the respondent Phool Singh to surrender such land as he chooses. We are of the opinion that they were not right in construing this Courts order in the above manner. Firstly, the appellant herein was not heard (he says that he was not even a party to the said SLP) before passing such order. Secondly, the said order cannot be understood as laying down a proposition contrary to law. All that it says is that the petitioner therein, i. e., respondent Phool Singh "will be entitled to choice in respect of plots forming ther of the sale deed". The said words are not capable of being construed as authorising Phool Singh to surrender the transferred land even if he is in a position to comply with the requirement of surrender of surplus land without touching the transferred land. To repeat, the order of this Court cannot and should not be construed in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. This Court could not have contemplated passing an order contrary to the provisions of the Act or to authorise the respondent Phool Singh to surrender surplus land contrary to the provisions of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the said order this Court is not capable of nor can it be construed as overriding or superseding the provisions of the Act. The choice referred to in the order of this Court is the choice referred to in Section) and not independent of it