M.P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The petitioners husband was issued notice under Section 10 (2) but, as he died in the meantime, therefore, the same was served on the petitioner as the widow and she filed objections. The Prescribed Authority decided the objections and thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor. The appeal was partly allowed. The petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and her learned counsel Shri G. Malaviya, has contended that the plot No. 2075 of village Alipur Makhan should have been treated as a grove in the instant ceiling proceedings also even as it had been treated in the earlier ceiling proceedings. Counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below have not correctly read the oral statement of Omkar Swarup, Supervisor Kanungo of the area. A true copy of his statement is annexure 6 and he stated that there was an old mango grove in the said plot and that the trees were felled and new trees were planted subsequently. He further stated that the plot was under cultivation but the trees which had been planted would when fully grown up, preclude cultivation in the plot. Counsels contention is that the first notice in the ceiling proceedings was issued on 26th April, 1974, and on the said date the old grove was in existence. The old mango trees were cut thereafter and new trees were planted in the place of the old trees. In these circumstances, counsels contention is that it should be held that the new trees planted in the place of the old trees have the effect of maintaining the nature of the plot as a grove and there has been no change in the nature of the said plot which should be treated to continue to be a grove throughout. I have considered this contention. The learned Standing Counsel, however, drew my attention to the definition of grove land in Section 3 (8) of the Act which is as under: "grove land means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including (guava, papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before January 24, 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove."
(3.) His contention is that for the purposes of the ceiling law this definition is decisive and it is not permissible to refer to the definition of grove in the U. P. Tenancy Act which definition is applicable to the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act also. In my view, this contention is correct. If the old grove ceases to be a grove in view of the fact that old trees are felled and the land is converted into cultivatory land after 24th Jan., 1971, then, in my opinion, if new trees are planted in the place of the old trees and even if such new trees when fully grown will preclude the land or considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, still, in view of the fact that the new trees have been planted after 24th January, 1971, the land cannot be treated as grove land in view of the aforesaid definition in the Ceiling Act. The legislative injunction is that before a land can be treated as a grove land under the ceiling law, the trees thereon must has been planted before Jan. 24, 1-971. The fact that there was an old grove on the said date and thereafter the grove was converted into cultivatory land on which fresh trees in the place of felled trees were planted, will not entitle the tenure-holder to claim that the plot should be treated as grove land under the said definition. In this view of the matter, and on the admitted facts of this case where it is clearly admitted that the new trees have been planted after 24th Jan., 1971, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the aforesaid plot was wrongly not treated as grove land by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court below.;