D.P. Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was served upon the contesting respondents wherein it was proposed to declare 6.39 acres of land as surplus. The respondent No. 1 filed its objection which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the notice was affirmed by its order dated 28.7.1977. On appeal preferred by respondent No. 1, the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, allowed the same vide its order dated 10th of May, 1978. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid appellate order. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 9th November, 1978. A special leave petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Apex Court against the order of this Court which was allowed by an order dated 26.11.1996 and the matter was remanded to this Court for decision afresh on merits. While the matter remained pending before the superior courts, an application under Section 13 (a) of the Act read with Section 151, C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the petitioner before the prescribed authority to the effect that the respondent No. 1 in fact possessed 362.26 acres of surplus land which by mistake could not be included in the earlier notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and thus the notice should be amended and simultaneously the order dated 28.7.1977 passed by the prescribed authority be also modified. The prescribed authority in spite of the objection filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 allowed the said application by its order dated 18th April, 1980 and declared 362.26 acres of land as surplus. This resulted in a second round of litigation and an appeal was filed against the aforesaid order before the District Judge, Varanasi. The appellate authority vide its order dated 17th February. 1983, quashed the order of the prescribed authority dated 18.4.1980. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7830 of 1983 which was dismissed by this Court on 11th July, 1983. This dismissal gave rise to another special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was allowed by an order dated 23.1.1995 and the matter was again remanded back to this Court for decision afresh.
3. Both these writ petitions are before this Court. Substantially, the facts and arguments in both these cases are identical. Thus, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
4. The respondent No. 1 has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in both the petitions after serving a copy to the petitioner on 31.10.2000. On 10th January, 2003, three weeks and no more time was granted to file rejoinder-affidavit. However, it was not filed. Again on 19th February, 2003, last opportunity was granted to file rejoinder-affidavit but the same has not been filed. Today, the standing counsel made an oral prayer for grant of further time to file rejoinder-affidavit. There is no reason why the matter should be adjourned when stop orders were passed on two occasions and no rejoinder-affidavit was filed. No reason is forthcoming from the side of the petitioner as to why the rejoinder-affidavit could not be filed. Thus, the prayer was rejected and the writ petition was heard on merits.
5. During the pendency of the writ petitions, an impleadment application was filed on behalf of O.C.L. India Ltd. After serving a copy of the same on the standing counsel on 19th July, 1999. No objections to the said impleadment application was filed. The amendment application has been filed on the ground that now O.C.L. India Ltd. has taken over the factory and the premises of respondent No. 1 after obtaining due permission from the relevant authorities. This Court by an order dated 3rd February, 2000, had directed that O.C.L. India would be able to advance argument as an intervener.
6. Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel and Ajai Kumar Singh, for the respondents.
7. On a proposal of the State Government, the respondent No. 1 agreed to establish a 'Soda Ash cum Ammonium Chloride' Factory in Varanasi. An agreement was entered between the parties on 2nd April, 1957, referable to Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act for providing land to the respondent No. 2 for establishing the aforesaid factory. The State Government after complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act acquired about 500 acres of agricultural land of several villages through various notifications. In all the notifications, the purpose was for setting up of the aforesaid Chemical Fertilizer factory by the respondent No. 2. The entire compensation and enhanced compensation and costs of acquisition was paid by the respondent No. 1. After the land had vested in the State free from all encumbrances, under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was duly transferred to respondent No. 1 through various deeds, including transfer deeds dated 5th July, 1957 and 2nd January, 1963. The respondent No. 1 set up the fertilizer factory for which the land was acquired and also constructed other buildings like labour colony, etc. and laid roads over the land so acquired and transferred to it. It appears that a portion of the land was also being used as a testing ground for the chemical fertilizers to observe its effect on standing crops.
8. As noted above a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was initially issued to the respondent No. 1 showing that it had 6.39 acres as surplus land. This notice and the order passed thereon were also got amended. The result being that 362.26 acres was shown as surplus land in the alleged holding of respondent No. 1. When this Court had decided the two writ petitions, the same were not decided on merit but were dismissed summarily on the ground of laches. Therefore, the Apex Court has remanded the matter for being decided on merit.
9. The principal contention of the learned standing counsel was that there being no declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, therefore, the land of respondent No. 2 was not excluded under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, it is contended, the appellate court was wrong in holding that the land was not subject to proceedings under the Act. The second contention of the learned standing counsel was that during spot inspection, certain portions of the land were found to be under cultivation, therefore, he contends that atleast 6.39 acres of land were surplus and the order of the appellate authority was bound to be quashed on these two scores.
10. The U. P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was enacted with the primary purpose of securing the interest of the community to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers and also for more equitable distribution of land. Section 5, which is the charging section, mandates that no 'tenure-holder' shall be entitled to hold 'land' in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Sub-clause (2) of Section 5 mandates that Sub-clause (1) shall not apply to land held by the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority or a Government company or a Corporation. Section 6 of the Act grants exemption to certain land from the imposition of ceiling. Both the sections appear in Chapter II of the Act. Section 6 mandates that 'land of a tenure holder' shall not be taken into consideration for determining the ceiling area if the land is used for industrial purpose and in respect of which a declaration under Section 143 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, subsists. It would be useful to quite the relevant portion of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, hereunder :
'5. Imposition of Ceiling.--(On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972), no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.
Explanation I.--In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any person, shall be taken into account.
Explanation II.--(If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possession and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register after the said date) either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person.
(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall apply to land held by the following classes of persons, namely :
(a) the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority or a Government Company or a Corporation ;
(b) a University ;
(c) ..................................................................
(d) ..................................................................
(e) ..................................................................
(3) .......................................................................
(a) ..................................................................
(b) ..................................................................................................................................
6. Exemption of certain land from the imposition of ceilings.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the celling area applicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure holder, namely :
(a) land used for an Industrial purpose (that is to say, for purposes of manufacture, preservation, storage or processing of goods), and in respect of which a declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, subsists ;
(b) ..................................................................
(c) ..................................................................
(d) ..................................................................
(e) ..................................................................
(f) ..................................................................
(g) ..................................................................
Explanation. --........................................................
(2) .........................................................................
(3) .........................................................................
(4) .........................................................................
(i) ..................................................................
(ii) ..................................................................
11. From a perusal of Section 5 of the Act, it is clear that the Act would come into play with regard to any land held by a 'tenure-holder' which is in excess of the celling area. Thus, for the application of the Act, the person should be 'tenure-holder'. The term 'tenure holder' has been defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 3 of the Act which is quoted below :
'(17) 'tenure-holder' means a person who is the holder of a holding, but except in Chapter III does not include--
(a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder ;
(b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder.'
12. A perusal of the definition shows that it refers to the 'holder of a holding'. Again 'holding' has been defined in Sub-clause (9) of Section 3 which is quoted herein below :
'(9) 'holding' means the land or lands held by a person as bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sublessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease.'
13. A perusal of Sub-clause (9) of Section 3 shows that 'holding' refers to land held by a person as a bhumtdhar, sirdar, assami of a Gaon Sabha, etc. It also includes land given on lease by the Government.
14. A joint reading of Section 5 with Sub-clauses (9) and (17) of Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that sine qua non for application of the Act is that the land should be agricultural land and holding of a tenure holder. The term 'land' has not been defined under the Act. However, the definition of the term given in U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, can safely be taken into account. Sub-section (14) of Section 3 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, defines land as 'land held or occupied for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry'. The term 'land' has also been defined under Sub-clause (10) of Section 3 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, to mean land which is let or held for growing crops, etc. but does not include land for the time being occupied by buildings or appurtenant thereto. The term 'holding' has also been defined in Sub-clause (7) of Section 3 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, to mean 'land held under one lease'. Thus, it is apparent that only that land is amenable to ceiling proceedings which is, (a) held or occupied as bhumidhar, sirdar, asami, etc. for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture, etc. ; or (b) let or held for growing crops, etc., (c) let on lease by Government for the aforesaid purpose.
15. Keeping in mind, the definition of 'land', 'holding' and 'tenure holder', it can be said, loosely, that the provisions of the Act were meant to apply to agricultural land or land connected with such other likewise purpose. Crucial question is whether land after acquisition by operation of law still remains agricultural land? The answer can only be a emphatic no. Once the land is acquired and is vested in the State, it would lose all its character of land held by a tenure holder which is sine qua non to the application of the Act. Once the agricultural land ceases to be the holding of a tenure holder, the Act would not apply. This is the spirit of the exemption clause under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the usage of land for other than agricultural purpose with a subsisting declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, takes out such land from the rigor of the Act. This implies that if the land loses its character of 'land', as understood under the Act and U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Act would not apply. After acquisition, the land having lost its character of agricultural land, etc., the real purpose for which it is being used would have necessarily to be seen. A perusal of the sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of the contesting respondents and covenant thereof clearly show that the land has been sold for industrial purposes. There is nothing on record to show that the contesting respondent was not using the land for industrial purposes. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act with reference to the land in dispute, the land would not be exempted under Section 6, is without force. The question of invoking of the exemption clause would only arise if the land is held by a tenure holder and is in the nature of a holding. As already held above, the land in question is neither held by tenure holder nor is in the nature of a holding, therefore, there was no occasion for getting a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act and it would only be necessary, as mentioned above, where a tenure holder seeks exemption for his agricultural land. I am of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the land held by the respondent No. 1.
16. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also has no force, Admittedly, out of about 500 acres only about 6 acres were being used for growing crops. This has also been explained by the contesting respondents that effect of fertilizers produced by the respondents was being tested on crops within the establishment itself. Even otherwise, major portion of the land was being used for industrial purpose, thus the land would not become holding of a tenure holder. The learned District Judge in appeal has held that the land of the respondent No. 1 was exempted under Section 6 of the Act, is erroneous for the reasons given hereinabove. However, the conclusion reached by the appellate court is substantially correct, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the appellate order.
17. In view of the discussions hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.