1. In response to the notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1961 (shortly, the Act) opposite party No. 1, among other things, claimed exemption under Section 6(i)(a) of the Act in respect of plots Nos. 225 and 226 measuring in the aggregate 25 Bighas situate in village Dandra and plots Nos. 1913, 1914 and 1972 measuring in the aggregate 2 Bighas 14 Biswas situate in village Ujhani on the ground that the said plots were used for industrial purposes. The Prescribed Authority rejected the claim. Opposite party No. 1 appealed. The appeal was heard by the 1st Additional District Judge, Opposite party No. 2 who accepted the claim. Aggrieved by his order, the State has come up to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. In accepting the appellant's claim the learned Additional District Judge was guided by two declarations under Section 143 of U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, one dated 8-9-75 pertaining to plots Nos. 225 and 226 and the other dated 14-1-76 regarding plots Nos. 1013, 1014 and 1082 which were obtained and filed before him during the pendency of the appeal. The argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that these declarations could not be acted upon under Seotion (i)(a) of the Act.
3. Second 6(i)(a) reads:—
“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.”
4. In accordance with Section 5(1) of the Act ceiling area has to be determined with reference to the date on which the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of piling on Land Holdings Amendment Act 1972 came into force, that is 8-6-73. In my opinion the word ‘subsists’ occurring in Section 6(i)(a) has reference to the said date and, properly construed Section 6(i)(a) provides that there must be a declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 which had been obtained before and was in force on 8-6-73. No such declaration was produced in the present case. The declarations relied on by the learned Additional District Judge are of a much later date. In the view expressed by me above the declaration could not be acted upon, as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel.
5. Therefore, even if it were assumed that the land covered by the aforementioned plots were used for industrial purposes, the petitioner was not entitled to exemption in respect thereof under Section 6(i)(a) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge was clearly in error in accepting the claim based on this section. The claim ought to be rejected and I hereby do so.
6. For reasons stated above this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26-2-76 of the 1st Additional District Judge Budaun opposite party No. 2 is set aside and he is directed to determine the surplus area in the light of the decision given above. The parties will bear their own costs.
7. Petition allowed.