HARDEV SINGH versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR & ANR.

HARDEV SINGH versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR & ANR.

Where a government lease contains conditions (Clause 9) restricting transfers and permits sub-leases in the ordinary course of agriculture without conferring independent tenure, a sub-lessee does not acquire the status of an independent tenure-holder absent compliance with the lease conditions; accordingly the sub-lessee remains an ostensible holder and the land is to be treated as held by the government lessee for ceiling determination, and the claim of the appellant was rightly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: HARDEV SINGH; Respondent: PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR; Respondent Government Lessee: HARIKISHAN LAL
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petitions (impugned Order Dated 20.08.2008)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ceiling on Land Holdings, Government Grants and Lease Conditions, Status of Sub Lessee Vs Tenure Holder, Interpretation of Sections 3(9), 3(17) and 5 of the Ceiling Act
Land Law Agricultural Tenancy Land Reform/ceiling Law Ceiling on Land Holdings Government Grants and Lease Conditions Status of Sub Lessee Vs Tenure Holder Interpretation of Sections 3(9), 3(17) and 5 of the Ceiling Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HARDEV SINGH

Appellant

PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR

Respondent

HARIKISHAN LAL

Respondent Government Lessee

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petitions (impugned Order Dated 20.08.2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sub-lessees acquire the status of tenure-holder by implication under Sections 3(9) and 3(17) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
  2. 2 Whether sub-lessees are merely ostensible holders while the government lessee remains the real holder, so that land is to be treated in the hands of the government lessee for ceiling purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Where a government lease contains conditions (Clause 9) restricting transfers and permits sub-leases in the ordinary course of agriculture without conferring independent tenure, a sub-lessee does not acquire the status of an independent tenure-holder absent compliance with the lease conditions; accordingly the sub-lessee remains an ostensible holder and the land is to be treated as held by the government lessee for ceiling determination, and the claim of the appellant was rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Civil appeals dismissed
  • No order as to costs