N. D. Ojha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Inspite of a general notice having been published in the official gazettee as contemplated by Section 9 of the Act the petitioner did not submit the return of his ceiling area in the form prescribed. Consequently the Prescribed Authority served the petitioner with a notice as contemplated by Section 10 (2) of the Act. The notice was accompanied with the requisite statement prepared under sub-section (1) thereof calling upon him to show cause within the period specified in the notice why the statement be not taken as correct. The petitioner filed an objection inter alia asserting that a sale deed executed by him on 5th February, 1972, in favour of one Smt. Shanti Devi had erroneously been ignored and that his land situated in village Rajpur was unirrigated and had erroneously been treated as irrigated. Both these pleas were repelled by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 14th October, 1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was dismissed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, on 15th July, 1975. Aggrieved he has instituted this writ petition.
(2.) THE two pleas referred to above which were raised by the petitioner in his objection and were repelled by the Prescribed Authority, had also been raised by him in the appeal and have been pressed before me in this writ petition. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed dated 5th February, 1972, had erroneously been ignored by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge and that the petitioner's land of village Rajpur has erroneously been determined as irrigated. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that there is no substance in either of the two submissions, in so far as the sale deed dated 5th February, 1972, is concerned the same having been executed after 24th January, 1971, had to be ignored in view of Section 5 (6) of the Act unless it was established to have been executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. The Additional Civil Judge in respect of the sale deed has pointed out that by virtue of the said sale deed not only 50 kachha bighas of land purported to have been sold for a sum of only Rs. 22,000/-, not a single shell out of the sale consideration had been paid before the Sub-Registrar. On the other hand it was stated in the sale deed that the entire consideration had been received earlier. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on an agreement said to have been executed by his mother Smt. Resham Kaur on 17th September, 1968, according to which the petitioner's mother had agreed to sell the land for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/-out of which she had received an advance of Rs. 10,000/- at the same time and it was settled that the balance of Rs. 12,000/- shall be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Inspite of the aforesaid stipulation in the agreement the sum of Rs. 12,000/- was not paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed, but that too was stated to have been received earlier. No documentary evidence was produced in proof of the receipt of the sale consideration at any rate of the sum of Rs. 12,000/- even if the agreement dated 17th September, 1968, was treated to comprise of the receipt for the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In regard to the agreement aforesaid the Additional Civil Judge pointed out that it was an unregistered document. In the circumstances of the case he took the view that no reliance could be placed on the said agreement. After considering the material on record the Additional Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the sale deed was executed without consideration and appeared to be a fictitious transaction made by the petitioner in order to save his skin from the consequences of the Act. The finding aforesaid recorded by the Additional Civil Judge is based on appraisal of evidence and in my opinion does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The second submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's land of village Rajpur was unirrigated. It may be pointed out that the Additional Civil Judge has held that the petitioner did not file the copies of the Khasra for the relevant years and as such he had failed to substantiate the plea raised by him. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner before the Additional Civil Judge that it was not the petitioner's duty to file the necessary copjes of the Khasra but it was the duty of the State Government to have filed these copies was repelled by the Additional Civil Judge on the ground that when the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act along with the statement prepared under sub-section (1) thereof was sent to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the same should not be taken as correct it was the duty of the petitioner to point out such errors which according to him found place in the statement and to prove his case by producing evidence including copies of the Khasra for the relevant years. The same plea was raised by counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition also, viz., that it was the duty not of the petitioner but of the State Government to produce the copies of the Khasra for the relevant years to enable the Prescribed Authority to record a finding whether the petitioner's land was irrigated or not within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Act. According to counsel Section 4-A cast a duty on the Prescribed Authority to look into these Khasras itself before determining the petitioner's land to be surplus and record reasons as to how the petitioner's land of village Rajpur was irrigated within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Act. In order to deal with this submission it would be necessary to have in view the scheme of the Act. The preamble of the Act. reads :- 'Ceiling area' has been defined in Sec. 3 (2) of the Act. According to the definition the term 'ceiling area' means the area of land not being land exempted under this Act, determined as such in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 5. Substantial amendment was made in the Act by the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act 18 of 1973). By the said Act Secs. 4, 5 and 6 were substituted for the old sections. Reference hereinafter to these sections is being made as they stand after being substituted by U. P. Act 18 of 1973. Section 4 deals with determination of area for purposes of ceiling under Section 5 and exemptions under Section 6. Section 5 (1) inter alia provides that on and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him. As seen above the aforesaid amendment Act is U. P. Act 18, 1973, the date of commencement of which Act is 8th June, 1973. Section 5 (3) provides for the limit of the ceiling area in terms of irrigated land. Subsections (2) and (4) to (8) of Section 5 are not relevant for the decision of the point under consideration. Section 6 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned in Section 6 shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable, and the surplus land of a tenure-holder. The ceiling area contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 5 is to be determined, inter alia, keeping in mind Section 4, the remaining subjections (2) to (8) of Section 5 and Section 6 of the Act The extent of ceiling area provided for in sub-section (3) of Section 5 is in terms of irrigated land. The ceiling area of a tenure-holder, therefore, which is determined under sub-section (1) of Section 5 is in terms of irrigated land. Term 'tenure-holder' stands defined in Section 3 (17) of the Act. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a tenure-holder and his ceiling area was liable to be determined under the Act and as such it is not necessary to refer to the definition of the term tenure-holder Since ceiling area is determined in terms of irrigated land it is necessary to refer to the definition of the term 'irrigated land'. It is contained in Section 3 (11) of the Act. Amendments of the various terms which are defined in Section 3 have been made from time to time. 'Irrigated land' according to its present definition means 'land determined as such in the manner laid down in Section 4-A'. Section 4-A was inserted in the Act by U. P. Act 2 of 1975 with retrospective effect from 8th June, 1973, and deals with determination of irrigated land. Prior to the insertion of this section the manner of determination of irrigated land was contained in Rule 3 framed under the Act. Since the sheet anchor of the submission made by counsel for the petitioner in respect of his plea that the petitioner's land of village Rajpur was unirrigated is based on this very Section 4-A, it would be useful to reproduce it at this plea. It reads : * * * * In the scheme of the Act Sections 7 and 8 need not be referred to inasmuch as nothing turns upon these sections in order to determine the plea raised by counsel for the petitioner. Section 9 has also been amended by U. P. Act 18 of 1973 and its sub-section (1), as it stands now, reads :- Sub-section (2) of Section 9 inter alia provides that as soon as may be after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, the Prescribed Authority shall, by like general notice, call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the enforcement of the said Act to submit to him within 30 days of publication of such notice, a statement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 9. Sections 10, 11 and 12 are the other material sections and they read as follows :- Sections 9 and 10 refer to forms and particulars as may be prescribed. The term "prescribed'' has been defined in Section 3 (12) of the Act. It means "prescribed by rules made under this Act." Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that the general notice to be published in pursuance of Section 9 and the statement required to be submitted thereunder by every tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him in the State shall be in C. L. H Forms 1 and 2 respectively. Rule 7 inter alia provides that soon after the issue of general notice in C. L. H. Form 1 the Prescribed Authority shall, after making necessary inquiries, cause to be prepared a statement in C. L. H. Form 3. Rule 8 inter alia provides that as soon as may be after the expiry of 33 days from the date of publication of the general notice in C. L. H. Form 1 in the official Gazette, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon every tenure-holder, who has failed to submit the statement in C. L. H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C. L. H. Form 3 prepared under Rule 6 calling upon him to show cause within a period of 15 days from the date of service of the notice why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. It is not necessary to quote here Forms 2 and 3. Suffice it to point out that these forms inter alia contain various columns which are to be filled in for purposes of determining ceiling area as contemplated by Section 5 (1) of the Act. Their perusal makes it clear that these forms have inter alia to show plot Nos., their area, the irrigated area, single crop land in areas mentioned in Section 4 (2) of the Act, unirrigated area, Usar land and grove land. Form 3 which contains the statement which is prepared as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and which is served on the tenure-holder along with the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act has also in its column 6 of part A to mention the ceiling area applicable to the tenure holder under Section 5 in terms of irrigated land.
(3.) ON a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules it is clear that the ceiling area contemplated by Section 5 (1) of the Act has to be determined in terms of irrigated land. Land held by the tenure-holder in excess of the ceiling area is to be declared surplus. Form 2, in which the tenure-holder is required to voluntarily submit the statement of ceiling area, has inter alia to show, as already seen above, the extent of his irrigated land as also unirrigated land. Likewise Form 3, which contains the statement prepared in accordance with Section 10 (1) of the Act and which is to be served along with notice under Section 10 (2), has also to contain the extent of the tenure-holders irrigated and unirrigated area. It has further to give in its column 6 of part A the tenure-holder's ceiling area in terms of irrigated land. It is a settled principle of law that if a term stands defined in the Act the said term is to be given the same meaning wherever it is used in the Act unless a contrary intention is expressed. Nothing has been brought to my notice either in the Act or in the Rules which may contain an indication that the term irrigated area is to be given the meaning according to its definition for some purposes and a different meaning for other purposes. No contrary intention having thus been expressed the term 'irrigated land' has to be given the same meaning wherever the said term occurs in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder as has been assigned to it in the definition clause. Consequently there is no escape from the conclusion that when the tenure-holder is required to submit his statement in Form 2 he has to calculate the area of his irrigated land in accordance with its definition under the Act. Likewise Form 3 prepared under Section 10 (1) of the Act is to contain the statement about the area of irrigated land in conformity with the requirements of the definition of the said term. Since the ceiling area is to be determined in terms of irrigated land this area can be determined only if the extent of the tenure-holder's irrigated land is calculated in the manner provided for in the definition of the said term. If any other manner is taken recourse to it would be impossible to determine the extent of the petitioner's ceiling area in terms of irrigated land as contemplated by the Act. As such if any manner for determining the extent of irrigated land other than the manner contemplated by the definition of the term is adopted the extent of the irrigated land would not represent the extent of such land as contemplated by the Act. It is again a settled principle of law that if a particular thing is by statute required to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all. In this view of the matter I find it difficult to accept the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the words "the prescribed authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purposes of this Act", used in Section 4-A of the Act refer only to the judicial adjudication by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the objection of the tenure-holder under Section 12 of the Act. In my opinion the word "determine" apart from judicial decision also includes within its ambit its dictionary meaning. According to Webster the word "determine" inter alia means "to decide by authoritative and judicial sentence ; as the court has determined the cause ; to pronounce formally ; to state, to enounce, to come to a decision concerning, as a result of investigation, reasoning etc. ; as I am unable to determine its meaning ; to obtain definite and first hand knowledge of as to character, location, quantity or the like ; as to determine a rock, a route, the salt in sea water." The reason why I take the aforesaid view is this. When the tenure-holder submits his return in Form 2 he has to determine the extent of his irrigated land for without doing so he cannot give the required information. This determination has to be made with reference to the definition of the term 'irrigated land', It cannot be said that while the tenure-holder is determining his irrigated land for purposes of filling in Form 2 he is making any judicial decision. Section 10 (1) contemplates preparation of a statement in Form 3, as already seen above, for purposes of service along with notice under Section 10 (2). This statement has to be prepared in case where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement in Form 2 or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement. In that case where a tenure-holder has submitted his statement in Form 2 notice under Section 10 (2) can be issued only if the Prescribed Authority is of the view that the statement submitted is incomplete or incorrect. Here again the Prescribed Authority will have to determine whether the statement which has been submitted by the tenure-holder in regard to his irrigated land is correct or not without doing which it would not be justified in issuing a notice to the tenure-holder under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act. At this stage even though the Prescribed Authority will have to determine whether the statement of a tenure-holder in regard to his irrigated land is correct or not, it cannot be said that this determination amounts to any judicial decision. At this place it would be relevant to point-out that if no objection has been filed by a tenure-holder on a notice being served on him under Section 10 (2) of the Act the Prescribed Authority has under Section 11 to determine the surplus land of the tenure-holder "accordingly" meaning thereby in accordance with "the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10". In this connection it will be relevant to note that the form of the notice which is served on the tenure-holder under Section 10 (2) of the Act is C. L. H. Form 4. It has to bear the signature of the Prescribed Authority and inter alia contains the following statement :- "On your failure to dispute the correctness of the statement in my court, within the time allowed, the aforesaid statement shall be treated as final and ceiling area applicable to you and the surplus land shall be determined accordingly." At this stage the Prescribed Authority really only confirms the statement prepared under Section 10 and declares that area to be surplus which is in excess of the ceiling area which stands already shown in column 6 of part A of CLH Form 3 and which in its turn is prepared in terms of 'irrigated land' as defined in the Act. At this stage also the Prescribed Authority cannot really be said to be making a judicial decision on the question as to whether the extent of the petitioner's irrigated land, as shown in CLH Form 3, is in conformity with the definition of the said term or not. Section 12 deals with determination of surplus land where an objection is filed. As already seen above this section contemplates that the Prescribed Authority after affording the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence decide the objections after recording its reasons and determine the surplus land. This section thus requires the Prescribed Authority to do two things-(1) to decide the objections after recording its reasons, and (2) to determine the surplus land. It is thus apparent that even while determining surplus land under Section 12 the Prescribed Authority would do so in accordance with the statement prepared in CLH Form 3 subject to such modifications as may be necessitated by its findings while deciding the objections filed by the tenure-holder.;