Supreme Court settles the status of sub-lessees under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Hardev Singh vs. Prescribed Authority, Kashipur (2022) INSC 27 (10 January 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 27

Judges: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari. The judgment was authored by Justice Krishna Murari.

Can a sub-lessee of government land, leased for agricultural purposes, be considered an independent ‘tenure holder’ under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960? This was the core issue before the Supreme Court. The court examined whether sub-lessees could claim independent land rights, or if the land should be clubbed with the holdings of the original government lessee for the purpose of determining surplus land under the Act.

Case Background

In 1920, the Secretary of State for India granted a lease to Lala Khushi Ram under the Government Grants Act, 1895. After Lala Khushi Ram’s death, his successor, Harikishan Lal, sub-leased 2.49 acres of this land to Hardev Singh for agricultural purposes.

The Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, issued a notice to Harikishan Lal in 1978, proposing to declare some of his land as surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. This included the land sub-leased to Hardev Singh. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority declared 15 Bigha, 16 Biswa of land as surplus, including the land sub-leased to the appellant.

Hardev Singh, upon learning that his sub-leased land was declared surplus, filed an objection which was initially dismissed. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority. After remand, the Prescribed Authority again dismissed the application on the grounds that the sub-lessee’s possession was not reflected in the revenue records and that the sub-lease violated the original lease conditions.

The Additional District Judge dismissed Hardev Singh’s appeal. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also dismissed his writ petition. After the formation of the State of Uttarakhand, the case was transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which also dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against this dismissal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Prescribed Authority initially dismissed the sub-lessee’s application under Section 11(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, stating the sub-lessee had no locus standi. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority.

After remand, the Prescribed Authority again dismissed the application, citing that the sub-lessee’s possession was not reflected in the revenue records and that the conditions for sub-leasing, as per Clause 9 of the lease deed, were not followed.

The Additional District Judge dismissed the sub-lessee’s appeal. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also dismissed the writ petition. The case was then transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand, which also dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court eventually heard the appeal against this dismissal.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the definitions of “holding” under Section 3(9) and “tenure holder” under Section 3(17) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Section 3(9) defines “holding” as land held by various categories of tenants, including a sub-lessee of a government lessee where the sub-lease period is co-extensive with the lease period. Section 3(17) defines “tenure holder” as a person who holds a holding.

The Court also examined Section 5 of the Act, which imposes a ceiling on the amount of land a tenure holder can hold. Explanation I to Section 5 states that all land held by a tenure holder, whether in their own name or ostensibly in the name of another person, shall be taken into account.

The Court also considered the Government Grants Act, 1895, and its amendments in Uttar Pradesh. Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, stipulates that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not apply to government grants, and such grants are to be construed according to their terms. Further, the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, do not affect rights created by government leases.

The Court noted that the purpose of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, is to prescribe a ceiling on land holdings to secure the interest of the community, increase agricultural production, and provide land to landless agricultural laborers.

Arguments

The appellant argued that, based on the definitions of ‘tenure holder’ and ‘holding’ in Sections 3(17) and 3(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, they should be considered an independent tenure holder. Therefore, the land sub-leased to them should not be clubbed with the holding of the original government lessee.

The appellant further argued that the conditions in Clause 9 of the lease deed, which require the lessee to pay 25% of the transfer price or relinquish 1/4th of the land to the government upon transfer, do not apply to sub-leases made for agricultural purposes. The sub-lease was made for agricultural purposes and to promote food production.

The respondent argued that the definitions of ‘tenure holder’ and ‘holding’ cannot be viewed in isolation and must be read with Section 5 of the Act, which is the charging section. Section 5 includes a presumption that all land held by a tenure holder includes land held ostensibly in the name of any other person, unless proven otherwise.

The respondent also argued that Clause 9 of the lease deed excludes sub-leases made in the ordinary course of agriculture, implying that such sub-leases cannot create independent tenure rights. The sub-lease was for agricultural purposes, and thus, the sub-lessee cannot acquire independent tenure holder status.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 
   Whether the appellants, who are sub-lessees, by implication acquire the status of tenure holder in view of the definitions of ‘holding’ contained in Section 3(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the ‘tenure holder’ in Section 3(17) of the Act?
2. 
   Whether the Appellants being sub-lessee of the original Government Lessee are merely ostensible tenure holders of the land, while the Government lessees continued to be the original holders i.e., the land in question is merely held by the Appellants on behalf of the original lessees?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• 
  Sections 3(9), 3(17), and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: The court analyzed the definitions of ‘holding’ and ‘tenure holder’ and the provisions relating to imposition of ceiling on land holdings.
• 
  Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, as amended in Uttar Pradesh: The court considered the overriding effect of the terms of government grants and their immunity from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

• Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously Known As M/S. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P . And Ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 281] : The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the rights between the government and the grantee are regulated by the terms of the grant and that sub-lessees cannot claim rights contrary to the terms of the grant.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the terms of the government grant and the conditions stipulated for the transfer of land. The Court emphasized that the rights and obligations between the government and the grantee are to be regulated by the terms of the grant. The Court noted that while the lease allowed sub-leases for agricultural purposes, it did not create an independent right of tenure for the sub-lessee, especially when the conditions for transfer were not met.

The Court also considered the purpose of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which is to ensure equitable distribution of land and prevent concentration of land holdings. The Court reasoned that allowing sub-lessees to claim independent tenure rights would frustrate the objectives of the Act.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• 
  Sub-lessees of government land in Uttar Pradesh do not automatically become independent tenure holders under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
• 
  The terms of the original government grant and the lease conditions are paramount in determining the rights of sub-lessees.
• 
  Sub-leases made for agricultural purposes do not create independent tenure rights if they do not comply with the conditions stipulated in the original lease deed.
• 
  The decision reinforces the government’s power to regulate land holdings and ensure equitable distribution of land under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that sub-lessees of government land, particularly those under sub-leases for agricultural purposes, do not automatically become independent tenure holders under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. This principle is subject to the terms of the original grant and the conditions stipulated for transfer.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the Government Grants Act, 1895, in the context of sub-leases. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the terms of government grants and the conditions for transfer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardev Singh vs. Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, upholds the principle that sub-lessees of government land in Uttar Pradesh do not automatically become independent tenure holders for the purpose of land ceiling laws. The Court emphasized that the terms of the original government grant and the conditions stipulated for transfer are paramount in determining the rights of sub-lessees. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the Government Grants Act, 1895, and reinforces the government’s power to regulate land holdings.