Sub-Lessee Can't Acquire Status Of Tenure Holder Under UP Land Ceiling Act If Sub-Lease Was Contrary To Conditions: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that if subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari dismissed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which refused to extend the benefits of independent tenure holder to sub-lessees as the subletting itself was in violation of the pre-conditions stipulated in the Government Lease Deed. Factual Background Harikishan Lal (Respondent No. 2) inherited the lease hold rights of the land granted to Lala Khushi Ram by the Secretary of State of India vide lease deed dated 25.08.1920 under the Government Grants Act, 1895. A sub-lease for land admeasuring 2.49 acres for agricultural purposes was executed by Harikishan in favour of the appellants. The Prescribed Authority, Kashipur (Respondent No. 1) issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ("Ceiling Act") to Harikishan to declare certain areas of land held by him as surplus. By order dated 28.07.1978, the Prescribed Authority declared the same. The land sub-let to the appellants formed a part of the identified surplus land. Upon knowledge of the same, the appellants filed an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, which was rejected. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants and remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority. Again, the Authority rejected the application on the ground that the appellant's possession of the concerned land was not reflected in revenue records and the pre-conditions laid down in the lease agreement dated 25.08.1920 were not followed before subletting the concerned land to the appellants. The order was assailed before the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same. Subsequently, the appellants approached the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, State of Uttaranchal came into existence and as the land fell in the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttaranchal the Writ Petition was transferred and later dismissed for want of prosecution. Restoration application seeking recall of order was also dismissed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court restored the Writ Petitions before the Uttarakhand High Court, which finally dismissed them. Though the High Court accepted the appellants to be tenure holder under Section 9(3) of the Ceiling Act, 1960, it refused to extend benefit to a sub-lessee whose sub-lease was in violation of the conditions prescribed in Clause 9 of the Lease deed. Contentions raised by the appellants Referring to the definition of the term 'tenure holder' in Section 3(17) and definition of 'holding' in Section 3(9) of the Ceiling Act, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued they were 'tenure holders' as per Section 3(17). It was further averred that as independent tenure holders they were eligible for assessment of ceiling area, independent from that of Harikishan. The Counsel contended that the twin condition in Clause 9 of the Lease Deed was not applicable for subletting for agricultural purposes. Contentions raised by the respondents The Counsel appearing for the Respondents controverted the argument of the appellants that they had acquired the rights of independent tenure by submitting that the appellants had failed to take into consideration Section 5 of the Ceiling Act, which puts the burden on the appellants to show that they were independent tenure holders. It was contended that they had failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Counsel for Harikishan argued that since Clause 9 of the lease deed specifically excluded sub-leases made in ordinary course of agriculture, independent tenure rights cannot be created by sub-leases executed in ordinary course of agriculture. Analysis of the Supreme Court At the outset the Court observed that - "The very purpose behind enactment of the Ceiling Act is to prescribe a ceiling limit on the area of land held by a 'tenure holder' for the purpose of securing the interest of the community at large to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers with a view to have equitable distribution of land." Referring to Clause 9 of the Lease Deed dated 25.08.1920, the Court noted that the lessee was permitted to transfer the land only upon the fulfilment of the conditions enumerated therein. On perusal of the terms of the sub-lease, the Court observed that it specifies that if a sub-lessee intended to purchase the full rights of the original lessee and become an independent tenure holder, they had to do so in consonance with...

Sub-Lessee Can't Acquire Status Of Tenure Holder Under UP Land Ceiling Act If Sub-Lease Was Contrary To Conditions: Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags