K.N.Seth, J. - (1.) In response to the notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the tenure-holder, Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Sahai, District Bareilly, raised various objections. The only objection which requires consideration in this petition was that the tenure-holder was an Intermediate College imparting education in agriculture and consequently, the provisions of Section 5 (1) did not apply to land held by it. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-11-1974 declared an area of 3.84 hectares as surplus land with the tenure-holder after holding that the institution was entitled to hold 12 hectares of irrigated land as it was an Intermediate College imparting education in agriculture in view of Section 5 (3) (d) as it stood on the date of the decision. On appeal by the State, the learned District Judge took the view that in view of the amendments introduced in the Act the tenure-holder was exempt under Section 5 (2) (c). The learned District Judge did not decide other objections raised by the tenure-holder.
(2.) Admittedly the institution received recognition for imparting education in agriculture in Intermediate classes in August, 1974. Before that date it was only a Higher Secondary School imparting education in agriculture up to High School standard. The learned Judge gave the benefit of the amended provision of the Act to the tenure-holder on the reasoning that Section 5 had been amended retrospectively and that it would be proper and in consonance with the spirit of legislation to consider the status of the institution on the date of the amendment and not on 8-6-1973. The learned Judge also took into consideration the fact that the appeal was still pending when the amendments had been introduced, and the tenure-holder was entitled to take benefit of the amended provisions of the Act. In my opinion, the view taken by the Ceiling Authorities is not legally sound. Section 5 (1) of the Act as substituted by U. P. Act XVIII of 1973, which came into force on June 8, 1973, requires 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 the ceiling area applicable to him. It is obvious that the ceiling area has to be determined with reference to 8th June, 1973. Clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 as substituted by U. P. Act XVIII of 1973 provided that the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) in the case of a tenure-holder being an intermediate college imparting education in agriculture shall be 12 hectares of irrigated land. The section was subsequently amended by U. P. Act 11 of 1975 and U. P. Act XX of 1976. These amendments were made retrospectively with effect from June 8, 1973. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 as it now stani provides:- "Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to land held by the following classes of persons, namely:- (a) and (b) .............. (c) an intermediate or degree college imparting education in agriculture or a post-graduate college, (d) and (e) .............."
(3.) Before benefit conferred by Section 5 (2) (c) could' be claimed, it must be established that the tenure-holder satisfied that condition on 8-6-1973. Satisfying the test laid down in Section 5 (2) (c) on a subsequent date when the proceedings were initiated or the appeal was pending would not entitle the tenure-holder to claim the benefit as the ceiling area has to be determined with reference to the date of the commencement of U. P. Act XVIII of 1973, that is, 8-6-1973. Under the Act the relevant date for the purpose of determining the ceiling area is neither the date when the subsequent amendments in the Act were made nor is it relevant to take into consideration the fact that the appeal was pending when the amendments in the Act were made. Intention of the legislature still remains the same, that is, the determination of the ceiling area shall be made with reference to 8th June, 1973. In the present case, as noted earlier, the institution received recognition for imparting education in agriculture in Intermediate classes only in August, 1974. Before the date it imparted education in agriculture only up to High School standard. On the relevant date it was not an Intermediate College imparting education in agriculture in Intermediate Classes. The institution, therefore, could not claim the benefit of Section 5 (2) (c) of the Act.;