R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE writ petition was admitted on 17-2-1976 and petitioner's dispossession was stayed on the condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,200 (Rupees two thousand two hundred) with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karvi, Banda (Prescribed Authority) by 17-4-1976 and 'continued to make similar deposit by 17th April of every succeeding year.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the declaration of 18.91 acres of land as surplus. THE amount of Rs. 2,200 has been fixed on the expected profit from the land in dispute for the period the petition remains pending in this Court. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on the question whether any security should be fixed in such cases and, if so, what should be the amount. Section 16 fastens liability on tenure holder for payment of compensation to the State Government for use and occupation of surplus land. The manner of calculation is provided in Rule 18-A. The yardstick adopted is the land revenue. Rules 18 and 18-B give the procedure for determination of compensation. The Act or the rules nowhere envisage compensation on the actual or expected yield.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount as he shall be deriving benefit from the land which is deemed to belong to the State under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The argument is untenable. A tenure holder continues in possesssion not because the land belongs to the State Government or to any other person but because he is the owner of it. He has a right to cultivate and earn his livelihood from it. As a result of the area being declared surplus the tenure holder does not become an unauthorized occupant. His possession is not of a trespasser but an owner. The benefit that he derives is by virtue of the ownership and not because of wrongful possession. The objective of the State Government in acquiring surplus land is to bring in socialisation by reducing the excess area held by some persons and distributing it to those who do not have any. It may settle or let out such land. The Act does not envisage that the State Government shall itself carry on any cultivation in the area which is acquired as a result of Imposition of Ceiling Act. The loss suffered by the State Government can utmost be the amount which it would have derived ,as a result of such settlement. The amount is liable to be meagre and in many cases it may be nil. The imposition of the security of an amount on basis of yield of land works hardship on the petitioner who is deprived of his land.;