Allahabad High Court
U.P. Steels Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 10 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(1)AWC145, 2003 ALL. L. J. 508, 2003 A I H C 1413, (2002) 93 REVDEC 900, (2003) 1 LACC 574, (2003) 1 ALL WC 145, 2003 ALL CJ 1 311
JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.2,1984 and 6.12.1983, passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 23.10.1980, passed by respondent No. 3.
2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (for short "the Act"), was served upon the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why the land mentioned in the said notice be not declared as surplus land. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed an objection pleading that no land out of its holding was liable to be declared as surplus, as the petitioner was in possession of the land within its ceiling limit, that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the land in dispute, that 234 bighas 14 biswas and 15 biswansis of land was declared for industrial purpose under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was also pleaded that 22 bighas of land was taken over by the U. P. State Electricity Board and that over some land other persons were in occupation. It was also pleaded that there were as many as 150 shareholders of the company who should be treated as tenure holders. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record declared an area of 237 bighas 7 biswas 3 biswansis as surplus land, by its order dated 24.2.1975. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 22.7.1975. Challenging the aforesaid order, Writ Petition No. 11364 of 1975 was filed in this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 18.2.1978 with the observation that the Prescribed Authority shall re-determine the surplus land in the light of the observations made and the findings recorded by this Court in its aforesaid judgment. It was held that the land regarding which declaration was made under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was liable to be exempted under Section 6 (a) of the Act. In view of the order passed by the High Court, surplus land was re-determined. Before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner also made an application dated 30.9.1980, raising its grievances. Another application was made on 6.10.1980 by which choice was given by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority in compliance of the order passed by the High Court, re-determined/recalculated the surplus land and declared only an area measuring 46 bighas 14 biswas 5-1/3 biswansis as surplus, by its order dated 23.10.1980. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 6.12.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application on 5.1.1984, which was also dismissed on 10.2.1984, hence the present petition.
3. This petition was admitted and respondents were granted time to file counter-affidavit. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit was filed denying the material facts stated in the writ petition, in reply of which rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner controverting the facts stated in the counter-affidavit and reiterating and reasserting the facts stated in the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the present case, the procedure prescribed in Section 5 (4) of the Act had to be adopted, which was not adopted while determining the ceiling area. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the validity of the orders passed by the authorities below. It was urged that the judgment and order passed by the High Court, dated 18.2.1978, became final, which is binding upon the parties. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the same as the authorities below had acted in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and passed the impugned orders which are quite valid and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, against the orders passed by the authorities below. Writ Petition No. 11364 of 1975 was filed. The said writ petition was allowed on 18.2.1978. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below :
"On the basis of the evidence on the record, it could not be held that the land in respect of which declaration under Section 143 of the Act had been obtained was not being used for industrial purpose. The expression, "industrial purpose" has been explained in Clause (a) of Section 6 itself. It includes purposes of manufacture preservation, storage or processing of goods. Besides this in the khasras for the relevant year, only 35 bighas 9 biswas, 40 bighas 10 biswas and 25 bighas 8 biswas and 10 biswansi area is shown as under cultivation. The area recorded as abadi and factory is 189 bighas 5 biswas and 3 biswansi in 1378 F., 213 bighas 17 biswas and 3 biswansi in 1379 F. and the same is 1380 F. The remaining area is shown as parti new or parti old. I, therefore, hold that 234 bighas 14 biswas and 15 biswansi land in respect of which declaration under Section 143 of U. P. Z.A. and L.R. Act had been obtained and still subsists could not be included in ceiling proceedings. This area will be treated as exempt under Section 6 (a) of the Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed in part with costs."
8. The aforesaid order passed by this Court has become final as validity of the said order was not challenged before the Supreme Court. The authorities below after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, decided the case in the light of the observations made and findings recorded by this Court and re-determined the ceiling area of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application giving its choice as provided under Section 12A of the Act, The calculation made by the authorities below were also verified and certified by the counsel of the petitioner. Therefore, after the order dated 23.10.1980, passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring 46 bighas 14 biswas 5-1/3 biswansi of land as surplus, the petitioner had no right to file an appeal. However, the appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the review application was also filed, which also met the same fate and was dismissed by order dated 10.2.1984. The appellate authority in its aforesaid order observed as under :
"There were no calculations in the appellate's Judgment. List has been given and it had been checked by the counsel of the appellant who had conceded that it was correct.
It is urged now by him that there could be a mistake and certain plots in respect of which declaration under Section 143 had been granted, were not excluded. He had to concede that declaration was not in record in respect of some of the plots which he claimed to be covered by that declaration and that it is not traceable. His contention is that he should be allowed 234-14-15 bighas of land it is not necessary to show declaration under Section 143. That, in my opinion, is not correct and in any case review is not rehearing of appeal. If the counsel had conceded certain point and there could have been mistake, review will not be maintainable. Judgment shows no clerical or arithmetical error and if there is some mistake for which we have to go through the record again, it will not be a ground for review.
As it is, in my opinion, review is not maintainable and there is no clerical error which is apparent on the record. The application is without any force."
9. Under the Act, there is no provision of filing a review application. Section 13A of the Act simply provides for an application for rectification of clerical mistake. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded before the appellate authority that there was no mistake in the calculation, thus, the appellate authority was right in holding that the review was legally not maintainable.
10. So far as application under Section 5 (4) of the Act is concerned, Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act provides as under :
"(4) Where any holding is held by a firm or co-operative society or association of persons (whether incorporated or not, but not including a public company), its members (whether called partners, shareholders or by any other name) shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to hold that holding in proportion to their respective shares in that firm, cooperative society or other society or association of persons :
Provided that where a person immediately before his admission to the firm, co-operative society, or other society or association of persons, held no land or an area of land less than the area proportionate to his aforesaid share then he shall be deemed to hold no share, or as the case may be only the lesser area in that holding, and the entire or the remaining area of the holding, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be held by the remaining members in proportion to their respective shares in the firm, cooperative society or other society or association of persons."
11. A reading of the aforesaid Sub-section shows that it applies only to the holding held by a firm, co-operative society or other society or association of persons, whether incorporated or not. In the said subsection, it has been specifically stated that it will not apply to a public company. Admittedly, the petitioner is a public company, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 (4) of the Act will have no application in the present case. A reading of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder reveals that the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Act which provides as under :
"6. Exemption of certain land from the imposition of ceiling.--(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 ceiling 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."
12. In the present case, since there was a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, this Court in the above noted writ petition permitted the petitioner to retain the land regarding which there was declaration under Section 143 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any other exemption provided for a public company.
13. So far attack on Section 5 (4) of the Act on the ground of violation of Article 14 is concerned. It would suffice to state that the question of discrimination arises amongst equals. The status of a public company cannot be equated with a private limited company, a firm, co-operative society or other association, etc., as in these cases, the liability of the share holders is limited to the shares held by them and there is a bar on the number of share holders while in the case of a public company, it is not so. Further, the Act has been placed in Schedule IX of the Constitution of India and the enactments placed in Schedule IX of the Constitution of India are immune from the attack on the ground of contravention of Article 14. Under Article 31B of the Constitution of India read with Schedule IX, the validity of the Act cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of Article 14. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 5 (4) of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted.
14. No other point was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
16. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.