Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against impugned orders dated 22.7.83, 19.9.83 and 31.3.83. I have heard Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) THE dispute relates to U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner's case earlier had come upto the High Court, in writ petition No. 980 of 1980 which was allowed on 9.12.80 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration as to whether the land which was used for the purpose of a brick kiln can be taken into consideration for calculating the ceiling limit of the petitioner's land. After the remand of the case the Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 31.3.83 (Annexure -8 to the petition) passed an order holding 20.27 acres irrigated land as surplus. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 22.7.83 and the review application was also rejected by order dated 19.9.83 though the surplus land was reduced. Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this court. Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary has submitted that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31.3.83 is vitiated in law because although the writ petitioner had led oral and documentary evidence, the learned Prescribed Authority has not considered the same and instead observed that neither the petitioner nor the department has led any evidence. In para 5 of the petition, the petitioner has referred to the statement of Shree Niwas and Lekhpal which were in favour of the petitioner. In para 5 other evidence has also been referred to but all that has not been taken into consideration. In the appellate order dated 22.7.83 also all this evidence has not been taken into consideration. The same is the position regarding order dated 19.9.83, although by the said order dated 19.9.83 the surplus land has been reduced to 13.8 acres instead of 16 acres declared by order dated 22.7.83. In my opinion the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The evidence of the petitioner which has been referred to in para 5 of the petition was relevant and should have been taken into consideration. Since that has not been done, the impugned orders dated 22.7.83, 19.9.83 and 31.3.83 are vitiated in law and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the evidence of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the factory house and boundary wall exist on the land in question and this is admitted by the Lekhpal and Tahsildar. This aspect shall also be taken into consideration by the appellate authority. Before parting with this writ petition I would like to mention that the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling Act requires to be amended, and large holdings should be permitted for farmers who do farming by modern scientific methods using tractor, harvester and other machinery. Although the Act makes a distinction between irrigated and unirrigated land, it does not make distinction between land fanned by modern methods and the land farmed by old methods (i.e. by bullocks). In my opinion farmers who do agriculture by modern scientific methods should be permitted to have large holdings because modern scientific agriculture is a capital intensive industry requiring a large initial outlay, and it cannot be done on small holdings. No one will make a large investment in purchasing tractor, harvester and other machinery if he is only permitted 18 acres of land for farming purpose. In the Western countries farming is done on large holdings with the result that agricultural production there is 10 to 20 times more in comparison to our country. We must understand the nature of modern scientific agriculture. Outdated techniques are now redundant, and if we want progress in our country we must have modern agriculture for which large holdings should be permitted. I, therefore, recommend to the State Government to permit holdings of at least 100 acres for farmers who do farming by modern scientific methods by amending the Ceiling Act accordingly. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar of this Court to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Govt.;