1996 (10) TMI 510 - SC - Indian Laws

Inclusion of Lands in Tenure-holder's Holding for Excess Land Determination under UP Land Ceiling Act

State of Uttar Pradesh Versus District Judge and Ors.

The Supreme Court held that lands covered by agreements to sell, where possession had been transferred but sale deeds had not been executed, should be ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether lands covered by agreements to sell, where possession has been transferred but sale deeds have not been executed, should be included in the tenure-holder's holding for the purpose of determining excess land under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Inclusion of Lands Covered by Agreements to Sell in Tenure-Holder's Holding:The core issue in this case is whether lands covered by agreements to sell, where possession has been transferred but sale deeds have not been executed, should be included in the tenure-holder's holding for the purpose of determining excess land under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (the Act).The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the High Court's dismissal of its writ petition against the Additional District Judge, Agra's order. The High Court had ruled that the lands covered by agreements to sell should not be included in the tenure-holder's holding, as the transferees were protected by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.The appellant-State argued that the High Court's decision was erroneous. It contended that mere agreements to sell did not create any interest in the proposed transferees, and the lands should be included in the tenure-holder's holding. The State relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, which held that lands under agreements to sell remained in the ownership and holding of the tenure-holder until legally conveyed by a registered sale deed.Respondent No. 3, the tenure-holder, argued that once he had parted with possession of the lands under the agreements, he no longer held the lands on the appointed day. Therefore, the lands should be excluded from his holding.Upon consideration, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in its interpretation. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in the land. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, property in the land is conveyed only by a registered sale deed. Since the lands in question had not been legally conveyed by sale deeds, they remained in the ownership of Respondent No. 3.The Court further clarified that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act provides protection to the proposed transferee against the transferor but does not affect the ownership of the land. Therefore, the tenure-holder remains the full owner of the land until it is legally conveyed by a sale deed.The Court emphasized that the definition of 'holding' under the Act includes lands held by a person as a bhumidar, sirdar, or asami, among others. It is not limited to lands physically possessed by the tenure-holder. The Court rejected the argument that lands not in physical possession should be excluded from the holding.The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, which held that a person in possession pursuant to a contract for sale does not get title to the land unless there is a valid document of title. The ownership remains with the transferor, and the land forms part of the transferor's holding.Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the lands covered by agreements to sell, where possession had been transferred but sale deeds had not been executed, should be included in the tenure-holder's holding. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court and lower Appellate Court's orders, and restored the Prescribed Authority's decision determining 31 Bighas 10 Biswas 15 Biswansis land as surplus holding of Respondent No. 3.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court and lower Appellate Court's orders, and restored the Prescribed Authority's decision determining 31 Bighas 10 Biswas 15 Biswansis land as surplus holding of Respondent No. 3. There was no order as to costs.