M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) These three petitions are connected ones and they arise out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. While certain common questions are involved, there are certain points which are not common. The common facts are that the petitioners in all the three petitions are Government grantees under the provisions of the Government Grants Act which formerly was known as Crown Grants Act, No. 15 of 1895. A true copy of the grant in each petition has been appended to such petition and marked as annexure 1 in each one of the three petitions. It is identically worded. Cl. (1) in the deed is as follows:- "In consideration of the rent hereinafter reserved and of the covenants on the part of the grantee hereinafter contained the grantor hereby demises to the grantee all that land situated in village (s) Govindpur in Tahsil Bajpur described in the Schedule "A" hereto together with all surface rights, easements and appurtenances whatsoever belonging there to HOLD the said land to the grantee, and his heirs as a hereditary tenant defined in the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act of 1938, subject to such conditions, restrictions and limitations as are imposed under this deed of grant Paying Therefor The Rent Hereinafter Specified.
(2.) In Writ Petition No. 3763 of 1976, Raghubar Dayal v. State of U. P. the document is dated 11th July, 1956. In Writ Petition No. 4847 of 1976, Vijay Pal Singh v. State the document is dated 1st Mar. 1963 and in Writ Petition No. 3795 of 1976 Pritam Singh v. State of U. P. the document is dated 12-11-1967. The notice under Section 10 (2) was issued to the petitioner in each of the petitions and each one of them filed objections. The prescribed authority decided the said objections. Thereafter the petitioner in each of the petitions filed an appeal which was heard and decided by the Civil Judge, Nainital. The appeal in Writ Petition No. 3763 of 1976, Raghubar Dayal v. State of U. P. and the appeal in Writ Petition No. 3795 of 1976, Pritam Singh v. State were dismissed. The appeal in Writ Petition No. 4847 of 1976, Vijay Pal Singh v. State was partly allowed. Now the petitioner in each of the three petitions has come up in his petition and all the three petitions, as stated above, stand connected and in support of them Shri Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made his submissions. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the grants made by the Government in the case of all the three petitioners were not leases and as such the definition of holding in Section 3 (9) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act did not take in these grants. Holding has been defined in Section 3 (9) as under:- " holding' means the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of Gaon Sahba or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a sublessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease;"
(3.) It is, therefore, clear that a Government lessee is also included in the said definition. Section 3 (17) defines tenure-holder, to mean a person who is the holder of a holding. Therefore, the Government lessee is a tenure-holder under the Act and Section 5 of the Act which imposes ceiling on every tenure-holder in the State is applicable to the Government lessee also. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the grants in the instant cases are not leases. I have already reproduced Cl. (1) of the three documents which clearly states that the grantee was to be the hereditary tenant of the land demised on the payment of rent as specified in the document. Cl. (8) (I) of the document is as under: "That this lease shall be governed by the provisions of the Government Grants Act XV of 1895." In Schedule A attached to the document the area of the demised land is specified as well as the rent payable by the grantee. Therefore, there is little doubt that the grants in question are leases whereby land was let out on the payment of rent by the grantee or the lessee. It is a clear case of lease. Sec. 3 (21) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act lays down as under: "The words and expressions not defined in this Act, but used in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Re- forms Act, 1950, shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act.";