# AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 253
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-05-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1971
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, C. ]. Ands. N. Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/agricultural-industrial-syndicate-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-5963
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Under Pradesh Consotida1io11 of Holdings Act. 1953.
Ss. 5(2), 49, 48AU11cir l'rudesh J111po!1dtio11 of Ceiling on Ltznd Holdi11~s Act, 1960, Ss. 10, 120bjections to State111ent sef\'(•d under s. 10 of Ceiling Act and dispute as lo
plots to be rt:uined i11 the ceiling area-l11itiation of Coruolidation proceedi1'gs
1u1de1 tht Consolidatio11 Act-Proceedings under Ceiling Act if "in respect o/
d1..·.:laratio11 of rights or intt•rest in any land lying in the area" within the 111t'alling
1. 5 (2) and tllerefort should abate.
Sf'ction 5 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act enacts, inter alia, th al
upon the issuance of a notification under sub-section (2) of 13ection 4 •·every
suil or proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land
lying in the area'' "shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the
court or an'.hority before whom such suit or- pro:eeding is
pending,
stand
abatt"d,''
The appellant is the tenure holder of a large area of land.
Since the
appellant did not file a statement of its holding as required by s. 9 of the
U.P. Jmpmition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. the Prescribed Authorily
under the Act served on it a statement prepared under section 10 in respect
Of its holdinJ1$. The appellant filed objections to the statement indicating the
plots it wanted. to retain as its ceiling area.
The Prescribed Authority did not
accept the appellant's choice wholly. While the proceedings were pending before
the authorities under the Ceiling Act consolidation proceedings were initiated
in respect of appellant's lands under the Consolidation Act. A large number of
persons filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the consolidation autho~
rities.
The appellants thereupon filed applications before the authorities under
the Ceiling Act for stay of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. These were
rejected.
In a writ petition the High Court accepted the . contention of the
appellant that the authorities under the Ceiling Act should have accepted entirely
the choice of plots which iy wanted to retain as the ceiling area and directed the
authorities -to decide the matter afresh. Jb.e High Court also directed that the
proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities would remain stayed during the
continuance. of the proceedin~ under the Ceiling Act. On the question whether
tile proceedings under the Ceiling Act are "in respect of declaration of rights or
iaterest in any land lying in the area,'' within the meaning of that expression
in s. 5(2),
HELD : Allowing the appeal, that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act
were abated under s. S ( 2) of the Consolidation Act.
(i) The Prescribed Authority acting under Ss. 10(2) and 12 of the Ceiling
Act is an "authority" within the meaning of that expression in s. S (2). [2S6E-F]
(ii) Section 5(2) will not ripply where a tenure holder voluntarily files :i
statement of his holdings under section 9 ar.d there is no dispute about the
right or interest in the boldin~. or when the tenure holder accepts the statements
sent to him by the Pie1!cribed Authority under •. 10.
But where the tenure
holder does not voluntarily file a statement under s. 9 and claims that he isnot the tenure holder of ·ai1 or some of the plots included in the Jtatement
prepared under s. 10 there ensues a dispute about a right or interest in land
and there -is adverseary proceedings between him and the government. The
prescribed arithoritv decides under s. 12 whether the tenure holder has any
right or interest in all or some of the plots, artd those plots in which be
has no right or interest are excluded from the statement served on him under
s. 10. This is the very question in issue before the Consolidation .Authority
under the Consolidation Act. If the clai11ls made to the a1>pellant's plots nending
under the Consolidation Act are allowed a large area of land included in the
statement under s. 10 of the Ceilinst Act witf have to be excluded from consideration by the prescribed Authority

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
253
AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
May 4, 1973
[A. N. RAY, C. ]. ANDS. N. DWIVEDI, J.j
Under Pradesh Consotida1io11 of Holdings Act. 1953.
Ss. 5(2), 49, 48AU11cir l'rudesh J111po!1dtio11 of Ceiling on Ltznd Holdi11~s Act, 1960, Ss. 10, 120bjections to State111ent sef\'(•d under s. 10 of Ceiling Act and dispute as lo
plots to be rt:uined i11 the ceiling area-l11itiation of Coruolidation proceedi1'gs
1u1de1 tht Consolidatio11 Act-Proceedings under Ceiling Act if "in respect o/
d1..·.:laratio11 of rights or intt•rest in any land lying in the area" within the 111t'alling
1. 5 (2) and tllerefort should abate.
Sf'ction 5 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act enacts, inter alia, th al
upon the issuance of a notification under sub-section (2) of 13ection 4 •·every
suil or proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land
lying in the area'' "shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the
court or an'.hority before whom such suit or- pro:eeding is
pending,
stand
abatt"d,''
The appellant is the tenure holder of a large area of land.
Since the
appellant did not file a statement of its holding as required by s. 9 of the
U.P. Jmpmition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. the Prescribed Authorily
under the Act served on it a statement prepared under section 10 in respect
Of its holdinJ1$. The appellant filed objections to the statement indicating the
plots it wanted. to retain as its ceiling area.
The Prescribed Authority did not
accept the appellant's choice wholly. While the proceedings were pending before
the authorities under the Ceiling Act consolidation proceedings were initiated
in respect of appellant's lands under the Consolidation Act. A large number of
persons filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the consolidation autho~
rities.
The appellants thereupon filed applications before the authorities under
the Ceiling Act for stay of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. These were
rejected.
In a writ petition the High Court accepted the . contention of the
appellant that the authorities under the Ceiling Act should have accepted entirely
the choice of plots which iy wanted to retain as the ceiling area and directed the
authorities -to decide the matter afresh. Jb.e High Court also directed that the
proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities would remain stayed during the
continuance. of the proceedin~ under the Ceiling Act. On the question whether
tile proceedings under the Ceiling Act are "in respect of declaration of rights or
iaterest in any land lying in the area,'' within the meaning of that expression
in s. 5(2),
HELD : Allowing the appeal, that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act
were abated under s. S ( 2) of the Consolidation Act.
(i) The Prescribed Authority acting under Ss. 10(2) and 12 of the Ceiling
Act is an "authority" within the meaning of that expression in s. S (2). [2S6E-F]
(ii) Section 5(2) will not ripply where a tenure holder voluntarily files :i
statement of his holdings under section 9 ar.d there is no dispute about the
right or interest in the boldin~. or when the tenure holder accepts the statements
sent to him by the Pie1!cribed Authority under •. 10.
But where the tenure
holder does not voluntarily file a statement under s. 9 and claims that he isnot the tenure holder of ·ai1 or some of the plots included in the Jtatement
prepared under s. 10 there ensues a dispute about a right or interest in land
and there -is adverseary proceedings between him and the government. The
prescribed arithoritv decides under s. 12 whether the tenure holder has any
right or interest in all or some of the plots, artd those plots in which be
has no right or interest are excluded from the statement served on him under
s. 10. This is the very question in issue before the Consolidation .Authority
under the Consolidation Act. If the clai11ls made to the a1>pellant's plots nending
under the Consolidation Act are allowed a large area of land included in the
statement under s. 10 of the Ceilinst Act witf have to be excluded from consideration by the prescribed Authority. Therefore, non~stay of procecdin_~ under
the Ceiling Act would cause hardship to the appellant.
A• '°"" as consolidalioa
operations are closed the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may· be
resumed.
[2S6fij
(iii) The pUl'lJ()Se of the non obstante clause in s. 49 is to exclude the
operation of any other overlapping Act. Section S (2) and 49 indicate clearly
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R.
that the proceedings in the instant case are to be abated under 11. 5(2). Further,
the a•bS<;:nce of a provision like s. 48A in relation to the jurisdiction of the
Prescrib.:d Authority tinder· the Ceiling Act lends
support
to
this
inference.
[258AJ
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction :
Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1971
Appeal by Certificate from the judgment and order dated July 27,
1970 d Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1701 of 1964.
A. H. Khwaja in person for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit, S. P. Singh, R. Bana and 0. P. Rana for the respondent.
The .T udgment of the Court was delivered by
DWIVEDI /. The appellant, the Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate
Ltd., is the tenure-holder of a large area _of land in two villages in
the district of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Aithal Buzurg and Buk--
kanpur. Some of its land have been declared as 'surplus land' under
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
(hereinafter
referred to as the Ceiling· Act). It went in appeal against the order
declaring surplus land to the District Judge, but without success. Its
writ petition has been partly allowed and partly dismissed by the
Allahabad High Court. This appeal, by special leave, is directed ..
against the latter part of the order of the High Court.
The scheme of the Ceiling Act is to allow a tenure-holder to
retain such of his plots as are assigned to him as his ceiling area and to
acquire the remaining plots as surplus land.
The ceiling area and
A
•
c
D
the s11rplus land are determined by the Prescribed Authority appointed
under the Ceiling Act.
The Prescribed Authority issues a general
E
notice calling upon all the tenure-holders of a village to file a statement in respect of their holdings. Under s. 9 a tenure-holder files his
statement in respect of all' his holdings as well as indicates the plot
or plots which he would like to retain as his ceiling area. Where a
tenure·holder fails to file a statement or submits an incomplete or
incorrect statement under s. 9, section 10 enables
the Prescribed
Authority to prepare a statement in regard to his holdings and serve it
F
on him.
As the appellant did not file a statement under s.
9, a
statement prepar!!d under s. 10 was served on it. An objection was
filed by it.
The objection indicated the plots which it wanted to
retain as its ceiling area.
The Prescribed Authority did not accept
its choice wholly.
After the decision of the Prescribed Authority, it
received C. H. Form V issued under tbe provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as the ConG
solidation Act) with respect to the land situated in village Bukbnpnr.
A review application was then moved before the Prescribed Authority on the ground of the pendency of consolidation operations in
village Bukkanpur.
The application was rejected on "September 15,
1962. While tbe appeal against the order of tne Prescribed Authority
was pending, village Aithal Buzurg was also brought under conso!i-
'dation operations. The appellant received C.H. Form V issned
H
under the Consolidation Act with respect to the plots situate in
village Aithal Buzurg. It made an application to the appellate authority informing him of the initiation of consolidation operations in the
.,
c
Q
'
H
·''·
AGRIC. & IND. SYNDICATE LTD. '" U.P. (Dwil'edi, J.)
255
two villages. It is said
that the
appellate
authority
~ook no
notice of the application and decided the appeal on mcnts. The
appellate authority also did not accept wholly the - choice of the
appellant in regard to the plots to be retained as its ceiling area. In
the writ petition before the High Court, the appellant pressed two
points for consideration.
First the Prescribed Authority and
the
appellate authority should have 'accepted entirely the choice of the
plots which it wanted to retain as the ceiling area; second,
~e two
authorities should have stayed the proceedings uader the Cetlmg Act
during consolidation -operations in the said villages. The firs: contenti~ was accepted by the High Court; the second was re1ected.
The ffigh C..ourt quashed the order of the appellate authority
~nd
directed it to decide the appeal in the light of its judgment. The High
Court also directed that the proceeding• before the
c?nsolidation
authorities would remain stayed until the appeal was decided by the
appellate authority under the Ceiling Act. This appeal is confined to
the second point.
The High Court has rejected the second argument for two reasons:
One, there was no merit in the argument; second, the appellant had
not raised the argument before· the Prescribed Authority and the
appellate authority.
it now transpires that while the petition was pending in the High
Court, the Consolidation Officer and the Asstt. Settlement Officer had
adjudicated upon the objections of a large number of persons claiming interest in the plots of the appellant. Their objections were dismissed.
They filed revisions against those orders.
111e revL•ions
were pending when the petition was heard by the High Court.
Arter
the decision of the High Court, the State Government has issued a
notification under s. 6 of the Consolidation Act cancelling the notific11tion bringing the aforesaid villages under consolidation operations.
But the High Coilrt has admitted a writ petition of the appellant
n1"tlnst this notification and has stayed the operation of the notification.
·
The second reason assigned by the High Court for rejecting the
second argument of the appellant may be disposed of first.
It is
clear from the facts already stated that the appellant did raise at
the proper time before the Prescribed Authority and the appellate
authority the argument that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act
shoul~ remain stayed during consolidation operations.
Accordingly,
we will now proceed to examine the correctness of the first reason
assigned by the High Court.
Its plea before the appellate authority
before ,a,nd after the dC?ision in th~ \\Tit petition, in effect was this:
_ !.\s revisions were pendmg under the Consolidation Act, its interest
m the plots was under eland. It might or might not be held to be
_ the tenure-holder of all or some of the plots. Jf the proceedings
~nd~r the Ceiling Act were not stayed, it would lose surplus land, and
it 1n1ght also Jose some of the plots included in its ceiling area as a
r~sult of an adverse decision in the revisions nnder the Consolida-
!IOn. Act. In plain language, its argument, in the alternative, was that
it m1gl1t not be the tenure-holder of all the plots.
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 s:c.R.
Consolidation proceedings are started in a village by virtue of a
A
notification issued by the State Government under s. 4 of the Con·
solidation Act.
Seciion 5 specifies the consequences which follow
the issuance of a notification under s. 4.
Sub-section ( 1) of s. 5
states certain consequences with which we are not concerned in this
appeal. Sub-section (2) is material for our purpose, and it material·
ly reads as follows:
"Upoa such publication of the notification under sub·
8
section (2) of section 4 the follo\\ing further consequences
shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates:
(a) every proceeding for the correction of records and
every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights
or interest in any land lying in the 3"ea, or for declaration
or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proC
ceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending
b~fore any court or authority whether of the first instance
or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being
pa~scd in that behalf by the court or authority before whom
such suit or proceeding is pending stand 'abated.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provided further that on the issuance of a notification
under sul>-scction ( 1 ) of section 6 in respect of the said
area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the
land lying in such area or part . . . . . . shall stand vacated.
(b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the
rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest
in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder."
The Prescribed Authority acting under s. 10(2) and 12 of the
Ceiling Act is an authority within the meaning of that expression· in
s. 5(2). The proceeding before him will be a proceedin11 within
the meaning of the said word in s. 5(2). But the proceeding before him is nol a proceeding for the correctness of records or for 'declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken' under the Consolidation Act. So
the limited question to be considered is whether the proceeding in the
present case is on "in respect of declaration of rights or interest in
any land lying in the area."
When a tenure-holder voluntarily files a statement of his holdings
under s. 9, the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority is not of
this kind, because the tenure-holder admits that the holdings are his.
There is ordinarily no dispute about any right or interest in the
holdings before the Prescribed Authority.
Again, when the tenureholder accepts the statement sent to him by the Prescribed Authority
under s. 10, there is no dispute with respect to any right or interest
in land. In these two instances section 5(2) will not apply. But where
the tenur~-holder does not voluntarilv file a statement under s 9 and
disputes that he is not the tenure-holder .of all or some of the plots
D
E
F
G
H
_,, •
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
AGR!C. & IND. SYNDICATE LTD. v. U.P. (Dwivedi, /.)
257
included in the statement prepared under s. 10, there ensues a disp~tc
about a right or interest in land.
According to s. 32 of the Ce1lmg
Act, the State Government is a party to every proceeding .. so in such
a case there is an adversary proceeding before the Prcscnbed Authrity between him and the Government. The Prescribed. Author!tv will
decide under s. 12 whether the tenure-holder has any nght or rntcrest
in all or some of the plots. If the Prescribed Authority finds
that
he has no right or interest in alt or some of the plots, he will exclude
those plots from the statement served on him under s. 10 and determine the ceiling area and. surplus land without taking into account
the excluded plots. This is the very question which is in issue before
the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act. Under s. 10
of the Consolidation Act the Consolidation Officer is called
l!pon
to adjudicate upon various claims to the plots falling within the consolidation area.
Take this particular case. Admittedly a large number of persons have filed claims to the plots of the appellant before
the Consolidation Authorities. Their claims are pending consideration
in revisions under s. 48 of the Consolidation Act. If their revisions
arc allowed, a large area of land included in the statement under s. 10
of the Ceiling Act will have to be excluded from consideration by the
Prescribed Authority. It is therefore obvious \hat the non-stay of pro·
ceedings under the Ceiling Act would
cause great hardship
to the
appelbnt.
Counsel for the respondent has submitted that all those
claimants before the revising authority under the Consolidation Act
can be impleaded as parties in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act.
Assuming in arguendo that they can be so impleaded, the question
still remains whether the proceedings under the Ceiling Act can go
on while proceedings with respect to any right or interest in the plots
of the appellant are simultaneously going on before the consolidation
authorities.
As soon as those claimants are impleqded in the proceeding under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act, the proceeding will more pointedly
become a proceeding "in respect of declaration of right or interest in
any land" under s. 5 (2) of the Consolidation Act
It is true that the purposes of the two Acts are different. Under
the Ceiling Act, the ceiling area and surplus land of a tenure-holder
are determined; under the Consolidation Act, the holdings of a tenureh0lder are consolidated.
But neither purpose may in a large number
of cases be accomplished without first determining the right or interest
of various claimants in the plots. So the crucial question for decision
is as to whether the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act or
the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act has got a
preemptive jurisdiction to determine rival rights and interests in the
land of the appellant.
We have already shown that the proceeding
under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act is a proceeding within the purview
of s. 5 (2) of the Consolidation Act. Section 49 of the Consolidation
Act materially provides :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time bein_g in force, the declaration and adjudication
of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an
area, fcir which a notification has been issuect under sub·
section (2) of s. 4 .... shall be done in accordance with the
provisions of this Act .... "
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C,R.
Obviously the purpose of the non-obstante clause in s. 49 is to
exclude the operation of any other overlapping Act.
So the nonobstante clause would exclude the operation of the Ceiling Act while
the Consolidation Act is in operation in a particular area.
Section
5 (2) and s. 49 indicate clearly that the proceedings
in the instant
case are to be abated under s. 5(2). Section 48A of the Consolidation Act expressly saves the jurisdiction of the Custodian
of the
Evacuee properties to decide claims to the plots of the evacuees
during consolidation operations. The absence of a like provision
in relation to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under
the
C.eiling Act lends support to our inference.
We do not think that the construction of s. 5(.2) should be influenced by the argument that if the proceeding; under s. 12 of the
Ceiling Act are abated, the appellant would retain lands in its hands
permanently or for a long time. As soon as the consolidation operations are closed on the valid issue of a notification under s. 6 or s. 52,
the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may
be resumed. In any
event, it is plain from the language of ss. 5(2), 48A and 49 of the
Consolidation Act that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot
continue in the circumstances of this case as long as the consolidation
operations are going on.
As in a fresh petition the High Court has stayed the operation
of the notification under s. 6 of the Consolidation Act, it is of no
avail to the respondent in this appea!..
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set
aside.
The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court
is allowed in toto,.
The order of the District Judge, dated January
31, 1964, is quashed and the proceedings unde1; the Ceiling Act are
abated under s. 5(2) of the Consolidation Act.
The proceedings
under the Ceiling Act may be resumed after the issue of a notification under s. 52 or after the dismissal of the writ petition challenging
the notification under s. 6.
Jn the circumstances of this case, there
will be no order as to costs.
S.ll.W.
Appeal allowed.
A
B
c
D
E