B.L.Yadav - (1.) "-By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 4-12-87 and 30-4-86 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in proceedings under Section 9 (2) read with Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act), are sought to be quashed.
(2.) THE factual matrixs of the case is that petitioner no. 1 filed an objection on 8-11-85 to the effect that an area of 15.29 acres of land, situate in village Lawan, has incorrectly been added in the Khata of Malkhan Singh (not a party to the writ petition). In fact, the petitioner alleged that he was an adopted son of Babu Kala, consequently, the land recorded in his name as tenure holder, could not be clubbed with the land of Malkhan Singh. THE petitioner ought to have been given notice as required by Section 9 (2) of the Act and Rule 9 of the rules framed thereunder. Petitioner no. 2 claimed that she was also recorded tenure holder over an area of 2.86 acre and that area also could not have been clubbed in the name of Malkhan Singh. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Addl. Commissioner, under the impugned orders, rejected the petitioner's objection on the ground that no notice was required. As the orders in ceiling proceedings against Malkhan Singh became final, hence the said area could not be claimed by the son of Man Singh, petitioner no. 1, who was later on adopted by Babu Kala, and that petitioner no. 2 Smt. Om Kumari was the wife of Malkhan Singh, consequently, she also need not be given any notice as required under Section 9 (2) read with rule 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Section 9 (2) read with Rule 8 leaves no room for doubt that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders and the provisions of Rule 8 along with its proviso is mandatory. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U. P., 1979 AWC 585. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is to be borne in mind that the provisions of the Act are confiscatory in nature and hence that have to be strictly interpreted against the State unless the intention of the legislature is otherwise. A bare reading of Section 9 (2) along with its proviso and Section 9 (3) read with Rule 8, leaves no room for doubt and makes it abundantly clear that the Prescribed Authority shall call upon every tenure holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the date of enforcement of this Act, to submit within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed. Similarly, under Section 9 (3) the provision is that in case the wife's consent was not Sled, the wife shall also be served with the notice. Rule 8 along with the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 appears to be mandatory. The legislature has taken precaution under Rule 8 in using the expression "shall cause to be served upon every tenure holder, who has failed to submit the statement in C.L.H. Form 2". A proviso has been added to the effect that where the statement in C. L. H. Form 3 also includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon such other person a notice in C. L. H. Form 4 together with a copy of the statement in C. L. H. Form 3 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.;