Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) A learned single Judge has referred the following question of law to a larger Bench: Whether the reduction in area brought about by the consolidation proceedings in the holding of a tenure -holder after June 8, 1973 can be taken into account while determining the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date?
(2.) IT appears that the Petitioner held 48 Bighas 1 Biswa 10 Biswansis area in his holdings when proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act commenced on March 31, 1973. On commencement of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, a notice under Section 10(2) of that Act was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed objections saying that by now proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been completed and an area of 42 Bighas 5 Biswas 10 Biswansis alone had been allotted to his chak. He clarified that the plots allotted to his chak were entirely different from the plots of which he was the original tenure -holder. The ceiling authorities, however, ignored the reduction in area as a result of reallotment of chaks in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. They proceeded to determine the ceiling area of the Petitioner on the basis that he continued to hold 48 Bighas 1 Biswa 10 Biswansis of land. In Jhandoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1977 AWC 318, a learned single Judge held that the prescribed authority has to determine that a tenure -holder did not hold any land in excess of the ceiling area after June 8, 1973. It was incumbent upon them to take notice of the events that may have happened subsequently, for instance, under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and to give effect to the reduction in area caused thereby in a tenure -holder's holding. In other words, it was held that if the area of the tenure -holder is reduced as a result of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, then the ceiling authorities should take that into account and calculate the ceiling area in the surplus land on that basis.
(3.) ANOTHER learned single Judge felt that these observations in Jhandoo's case : 1977 AWC 318, (supra) were rather too wide. He mentioned in the referring order an illustration that the reduction in area may be as a result of the valuation made under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act because of which the tenure -holder may be entitled to a lesser area than originally held by him. In such a case, the variation will be more apparent than real and so there can be no justification for making allowance in such a case. In this case also, the reduction in area took place as a result of valuation of the land originally held by the Petitioner and of the land subsequently allotted to him. It appears that higher valuation land was allotted to the Petitioner and so the area obtained by him was lesser.;