M.Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) JUDGMENT
(2.) THE Co-operative Society has preferred this writ petition against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court challenging the same. THE only point urged before this court is that the Society was covered under Section 77 (1) (b) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rules hence Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act would not apply. Reliance in that connection was placed upon the unreported case of Basant Collective Agricultural Ferming Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of U. P. [in Writ Petition No. 1357 of 1977, decided by a single Judge of this Court on 21-12-78]. In that judgment it was observed that for the Societies covered under Section 77 (1) (b) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, Section 5 (4) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, would not be attracted. It is noteworthy that the petitioner's counsel in support of bis argument that the Ceiling authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the holding of the society and to declare surplus area had relied in that case upon the case of Bahal Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of U. P., [1978 All LJ 548]. In the judgment in writ petition in question this ruling has also been cited and in a sense relied upon and not dissented. THE aforesaid case of Bahal Farming Co-operative Society (supra). however, actually lays down a different law. What has been held there is that in so far as Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act is concerned, it would apply to both categories of societies falling under Sections 77 (1) (a) and 77 (1) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act. It was however, held that the provision would not apply to the Society covered under Section 77 (1) (b) of the Societies Act as such. When that is the position I have BO reasons not to follow the express proposition of law laid down in the case of Bahal Farming Co-operative Society (supra) particularly when whatever the court may have held M/s. Basant Co-operative Society (supra) it did not dissent from the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid A. L. J. It was urged that there was Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the unreported decision in Writ Petition No. 1357 of 1977, M/s. Basant Collective Agricultural Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of U. P. (supra) which was dismissed summarily. That is hardly material. THE Supreme Court has not expressed any view concerning the main matter whether Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act applies to all the Societies registered under Section 77 of the Co-operative Societies Act irrespective of the categories. I may further observe that there is a later pronouncement of Allahabad High Court, namely, State of U. P. v. District Judge, Rampur, [1980 All LJ 1049], though in a very express term observation has not been made, the implication of this ruling is that Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act was held to be applicable and that is why a remand became necessary. I may also observe that if it is held that Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act would not apply to any societies registered under Section 77 (1) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act it may defeat the very object of Ceiling of holdings because a person not having any land and becoming member of a Co-operative Society would be free to acquire even hundred and thousand acres of land and say that ceiling would not apply. This cannot be the spirit and objective of the Ceiling Law as such. I, therefore, hold that as laid down in the reported case (supra), Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act does apply and argument to the contrary has no force. Arguments were invited how will be the petitioner benefited if the proviso is not held to be applicable on the authority of the very case of Bahal Farming Co-operative Society, [1978 All LJ 548] (supra) but nothing could be pointed out in that connection. THE main stand is that the petitioner is to get benefit on holding that Section 5 (4) of the Ceiling Act itself is in applicable which I find is not the correct proposition of law and that Section will apply. This petition is, therefore, rejected. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.;