AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (ORAL)
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
These two Writ Petitions (PIL) and one Special Appeal being connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 169 of 2013 has been filed in public interest jurisdiction and the reliefs, which have been claimed therein, are as follows:
“(a) declare that Section 25 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 does not confer unfettered discretion on the respondent
authority to utilize and distribute the surplus land; or alternatively
(b) such a construction claiming unfettered discretion would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;
(c) declare that Section 25 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 has to be read harmoniously with Section 27(3) of the said
Act read with Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950;
(d) declare that the discretion under Section 25 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 cannot be read in a manner as to render
the mandate of Section 27(3) of the said Act read with Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 otiose;
(e) declare that decision taken by the State respondent reflected through its affidavit dated 12.01.2013 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P. (C) No.24358/12 and unfettered discretion asserted by virtue of Section 25 of the U.P. Impostition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 will
be subversive to the mandate of Article 14, 21 and Directive Principles in general and Article 38, 39 (b) and
(c) particular;
(f) declare that the decision of the Government reflected through its affidavit dated 12.01.2013 filed by the Respondent State in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24358 of 2012 does not amount to compliance with directive of this Hon’ble Court dated
26.10.2010 in letter and spirit;â€
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016 (another Public Interest Litigation) has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to issue the Ceiling Pattas of the declared
surplus land of the Distt: Udham Singh Nagar/ Nainital in favour of the landless agricultural laborers of Distt: Udham Singh Nagar/ Nainital according
to the provisions of Section 27 (3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1&2 to withdraw its decision of transferring the
surplus land to SIDCUL/the respondent no. 4 herein.â€
Special Appeal No. 340 of 2014 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1493 of 2013. The reliefs sought
in the said writ petition are as follows:
“a. To Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order 08-05-2013 passed by the respondent no.3, after calling
the entire records from the respondents.
b. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner Sangthan for the
allotment of 39 Bighas 16 Biswa surplus land situated in Village Dhanpur Gosai, P.O. Perru Madara, Tehsil Ram Nagar bearing plot no. 63 (25 Bigha
3 Biswa) and 65(14Bigha 13 Biswa) to the members of the petitioner organization, or any other order for the settlement of the said families under the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.â€
We heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 169 of 2013, Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant in Special Appeal No. 340 of 2014, Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016. This
is besides hearing Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Rajeev
Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 169 of 2013, Special Appeal No. 340 of 2014
and for respondent nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016. We also heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent no.
4/SIDCUL in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016.
The complaint, in short, which we may set out in the very beginning, is that though land has been vested with the State under the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1960â€) and the purpose, for which the land has been
vested is for distribution of the land under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960, it is being frustrated and defeated by frequent resort to power under
Section 25 of the Act of 1960, which enables the Government to permit the use, either temporarily or permanently, of the land vested under the Act of
1960. In order to appreciate the scope of arguments, it is necessary to refer to Section of the Act of 1960. The same reads as follows:
“25. Use of surplus land for other public purposes. - The State Government may, instead of settling any surplus land in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, use, or permit the use, either temporarily or permanently, of the whole or any portion of such land for any purpose for which
such land could have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Section 27 of the Act of 1960 insofar as it is relevant reads as follows:
Settlement of surplus land. - (1) The State Government shall settle out of the surplus land in a village in which no land is available for community
purposes or in which the land as available is less than 15 acres with the Gaon Sabha of that village so however that the total land in the village
available for community purposes after such settlement does not exceed 15 acres. The land so settled with the Gaon Sabha shall be used for planting
trees, growing fodder or for such other community purposes, as may be prescribed.
(2) The State Government may either settle any surplus land in accordance with sub-section (1) sub-section
(3) or use or permit its use in accordance with Section 25 or manage or otherwise deal with it in such manner as it thinks fit.
(3) Any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the order of preference and subject to the limits, specified
respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
(7) The State Government may, by a general or special order to be published in the manner prescribed, declare that as from a date to be specified in
this behalf, all surplus land situate in a circle which could not be settled under the provisions of this Act, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha concerned, and
the provisions of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to the
such vesting.â€
It is pertinent to notice that sub-section (2) of Section 27 was substituted by U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973, which, prior to substitution, reads as follows:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where any surplus land had immediately preceding the date of vesting in the State under this Act,
been held by a member of a co operative society, such land may, if the society so desires, be settled by the State Government with the society.â€
Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 169 of 2013 would impress upon us the need to have a harmonious
interpretation and, in fact, he limited his arguments to pressing Relief (c) and, therefore, we need not be detained by the other aspects. He would
submit that harmonious interpretation of Sections 25 and 27 of the Act of 1960 will lead to the inevitable result that having regard to the high
socioeconomic purpose sought to be achieved by the Legislature, it is imperative that the claims of the landless labourers, particularly, the Scheduled
Tribes, must receive a dominant consideration. In fact, this Court passed an order dated 21.09.2017. It reads as follows:
“This Public Interest Litigation is essentially based on a Bench decision of this Court, which in turn was concerned with the question as to how land
in an extent of 1089.82 acres, which was found to be surplus land in relation to M/s Escort Farm (Ramgarh Ltd.), is to be distributed under the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Actâ€). The Court issued certain directions. The complaint in the
writ petition is that power has been exercised under Section 25 of the said Act without due regard to the mandate contained in Section 27(3) of the
Act. It is to be noted that Section 27(3) of the Act alludes to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, in Section 198 thereof, in the
matter of priority and settlement of rights.
Affidavits have been filed by the first respondent, as also, by the District Magistrate. In the affidavit, which is filed by the District Magistrate, it is,
inter alia, stated as follows:
“3- That it is relevant to submit here that from 9th November, 2000 till date, total 232.862 hectare land has been allotted to 361 landless families in
District Udham Singh Nagar, which includes 176.287 hectare land allotted to 231 families of Tehsil Kashipur under section 25 of the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, out of which 41.529 hectare land has been allotted to the 104 landless farmers belonging to Scheduled Caste
families of District Udham Singh Nagar, and 191.333 hectare land has been allotted to the 257 landless  farmers  belonging Â
to  General  Caste including 3 families belonging to O.B.C. of District
Udham Singh Nagar. It is also relevant to submit here that from 9th November, 2000 till date no land has been given to the farmers belonging to
Scheduled Tribe families. The copy of the allotment lists of landless farmers belonging to Scheduled Caste families and the allotment lists of landless
farmers belonging to General Caste including 3 families belonging to O.B.C. of District Udham Singh Nagar being are being filed as Annexure No. A-
1 and Annexure No. A-2 to this affidavit.â€
In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the stand taken is as follows:
“6.   That the contents of para 4 of the writ petition are not admitted. In reply it is submitted that 1089.82 acre land of Escort Farm has
declared surplus, out of which 422.08 acre land was allotted to 231 families in the year 2006, 27.6 acre land was transferred to Horticulture
department and 503.96 acre land has been transferred to SIDCUL. In addition to that 50acre land has given toÂ
stadium, 30 acre to Transport Nagar, 0.500 acre land to Nagar Palika Trashing Ground, 21 acre extra land has been
proposed to the given to SIDCUL. The remaining 30.62 acre land is leveled and not fit for agriculture, therefore is not fit for allotment.Â
200 Acre land, which was earlier given to the SIDCUL has been transferred to I.I.N. from SIDCUL and 0.200 acre land has been transferred to
Land Pollution Control Board, Regional Office and 0.500 acre land has been given to Trade Tax Department. If it was required to give the land to
other departments like Police, PAC, Medical, Entertainment Tax, etc then there will be need of 282.16 acre land to give to those department. In this
background, there is no extra surplus land left to give the other people included the petitioner.â€
During the course of arguments, Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there are no landless persons belonging to
Scheduled Tribe community in District Udham Singh Nagar. This statement does not find support from any averment in the Affidavits, which we have
referred to. Secondly, a perusal of Section 25 of the Act would appear to suggest that it clothes the State Government with the power to either use or
permit anybody else to use temporarily or permanently the surplus land instead of settling the land as provided for in the other provisions of the said
Chapter.
We notice Rules 57 and 59 of the Act, which read as follows:
“57. Where the State Government is satisfied that any surplus land vested in it under Section 14 is required for an urgent public purpose, it may
permit its utilization for such purpose.
[Section 28]. - (1) In making settlement of surplus land with the Gaon Sabha under sub-section (1) of Section 27, the Collector shall as far as it
may be possible, settle uncultivated land with it. Where, however, the required area of uncultivated surplus land is not available for settlement with a
Gaon Sabha in a particular village only so much of cultivated land shall be settled with it for community purposes of the village which will, along with
the uncultivated surplus land and the land already available with it for community purposes, make up a total of 15 acres.]
[(2) The settlement of surplus land, other than grove-land, under Section 26-A or 27(3) shall be made by means of a Patta in C.L.H. Form 36 and
Qabuliat in C.L.H. Form 36-A.]
[(3) The following terms and conditions shall be deemed to be included in the case of every settlement referred to in sub-rule (2), namely -
[(a) the lessee shall have hereditary rights in the land and inheritance shall be governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, as applicable to the Bhumidhars;]
Â
(b) the lessee shall be entitled to utilize the land only for cultivation or for other purposes connected with agriculture;
(c) except in cases provided for in clauses (d) and (e, no lessee shall have any right to transfer or sublet the land settled or leased in his favour;
(d) the lessee shall have the right to mortgage (including charge) the land in accordance with Section 153(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950;
(e) the lessee shall have the right to sublet the land in accordance with Sections 156 and 157 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, and the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder relating to subletting shall mutatis mutandis apply;
(f) the lessee shall pay annually to the State Government in respect of the land so settled, rent calculated at double the amount of sanctioned
hereditary rates applicable to the land liable to revision at the time of settlement.]
(4) If the lessee commits a breach of any terms and conditions of the lease, the settlement or the lease shall determine and the land shall revert to the
State Government.
(5) When a settlement or lease of any land has determined under sub-rule (4), the Collector may evict any person holding or retaining possession
thereof and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.â€
A perusal of the same would bring out the difference between the said provisions. When power is exercised under Section 25 and State
Government permits temporary or permanent use, it can be done only for the public purpose, as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In the case of settlement of the land, which is covered under Section 27 read with Rule 59, which we have adverted to, the law appears to clothe the
persons, in favour of whom the settlement of land is made with certain rights besides also imposing conditions. Prima facie, every effort must be made
by the Court to reconcile different provisions of an Act. The principle of harmonious interpretation of a Statute is far too well settled to require any
authority in support of the same. In fact, the preamble of the Act embraces both providing land for landless agricultural labourers and for other public
purposes. There cannot be a view, prima facie, which results in Section 27 being reduced to a dead letter.
In such circumstances, we deem it necessary that an affidavit should be brought on record where this Court is posted with information regarding
not only District Udham Singh Nagar, but also the whole of the State in regard to the following matters:-
(i) The total extent of land, which has vested under the provisions of the Act. Not only it will include the land, which was the subject matter of the
controversy in this case, but also all lands, which are surplus in the State.
(ii) The total extent of land, which has been subject matter of exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act. This information must also be in regard
to whole of the State.
(iii) The total extent of land, which has been settled under Section 27 of the Act.
(iv) The affidavit also will indicate as to whether there are landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, who have not been
favoured with settlement of land under Section 198.
(v) In regard to the cases where land is being permitted to be used either temporarily or permanently, it will be indicated as to what are the terms, on
the basis of which the land has been permitted, namely, whether it is temporary or permanent. It will also be indicated as to whether any conditions
are attached to the use of land under Section 25.
Five weeks’ time is granted to the third respondent to file counter affidavit in this regard.
List this case as the first case on 09.11.2017.
Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself.â€
Therefore, by the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2017, we enlarged the scope of the litigation and though, initially, the lis in Writ Petition (PIL) No.169 of
2013 was substantially limited to District Udham Singh Nagar, it was expanded to have ramifications all over the State of
Uttarakhand.          Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2017, a counter affidavit dated 26.02.2018 has been filed. In the
counter affidavit, in answer to the queries, which we have posed, it has been, inter alia, stated as follows:
“1. That the deponent is presently posted as In-Charge Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, who has been duly authorized
and deputed to file the present counter affidavit in the instant writ petition on behalf of respondent no. 3 and as such he is conversant with the facts
deposed to below.
That as is evident from perusal of the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 21.09.2017, the Hon’ble Court sought information on (5) points
mentioned in the order in respect of entire State of Uttarakhand and consequently an affidavit giving details of the land and allotments made by the
State in favour of certain landless persons were given in the counter affidavit, but due to some inadvertence mistake the details could not be given in
precisely and accordingly the said counter affidavit has been withdrawn.
That the Point No. (i) of the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 21.09.2017 requires the State to give details of the total extent of land, which has
vested under the provisions of the Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960, not only it include the land which was subject matter of the controversy in this
case, but also all lands, which are surplus in the State. In this regard it is submitted that the total surplus land acquired in the entire State under the Act
is 6328.7167 hectare which included acquisition of 943.535 hectare land in District Haridwar, 651.108 hectares land in District Nainital, 3889.7888
hectares in District Udham Singh Nagar, 10.100 hectares land in District Champawat, 135.281 hectares in District Bageshwar, 432.1199 hectares in
District Dehradun and 266.784 hectares in District Pauri (6328.7167 hectares)
That in respect of Point No. (ii) which is in respect of total extent of land, which has been subject matter of exercise of power under Section 25 of
the Act regarding the entire State of Uttarakhand, the answering respondent humbly submits that the total land which has been allotted under Section
25 of the Act is measuring 1695.3471 hectares, the details of which is being given in the chart prepared by the Board of Revenue giving the details of
allotted area, type of use either temporary or permanent and the purpose for which the said land has been allotted to the concerned Departments.
Copy of the Chart showing the details of acquisition, allotment and other relevant details is being annexed as Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit.
It is not out of contest to state here that a perusal of the aforesaid chart would reveals that in District Haridwar total 20.437 hectares of land has been
allotted under Section 25 o the Act on permanent basis to the Police, Horticulture and Education Departments of the State. Similarly 140.273 hectares
of land was allotted permanently in District Nainital for the purpose of horticulture and construction of build, Industrial (U.P.C.L) Govt. Polytechnic, in
District Udham Singh Nagar total 1184.635 hectares of land allotted permanently to Education, Industries, landless people for agriculture purposes and
to SIDCUL as well. In District Bageshwar total 126.138 hectares of land was allotted on permanent basis to the Forest Department and Director,
Geology, Geological Mining, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow for residential purposes. In District Dehradun total 222.0391 hectares of land was allotted
permanently for establishing Govt. Offices and Govt. Accommodation as well as to the Forest Department, whereas in District Pauri for Govt.
purposes and one Sri Harshwardhan S/o Bharat Singh for workshop, residence (at present recorded in the name of State Govt.)
That so far as the Point No. (iii) is concerned which is in respect of total extent of land, which has been settled under Section 27 of the Act, the
answering respondent humbly submits that total 2656.5737 hectares of land has been allotted under Section 27, which included allotment of 102.81
hectares under Section 27(1) and 2553.7607 hectares under Section 27(3) of the Act, the details of the same has been described in the Chart prepared
by the answering respondent. It is submitted that perusal of the Chart clearly demonstrates that the number of allottees under Section 27(3) are 5575,
out of which the allottees belonging to Scheduled Tribe are 340 in numbers. It is clarified here that the allottees belonging to Scheduled Tribe in
District Haridwar are 07 in District Nainital 17, in District Udham Singh Nagar 301 and in District Pauri are 23. It is also pertinent to state here after
the allotment of surplus land remaining 1976.8209 hectares is still available with the State Government.
That with regard to the Point No. (iv) which is in respect of as to whether there are landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe,
who have not been favoured with settlement of land under Section 198 is concerned, it is submitted that as per the information received from all
District Magistrates of the State, only 8 persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe community and are residents of Village Paharpur, Tehsil Bazpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar have been identified as landless persons. The said 08 landless persons could not have been allotted the land as per
provisions of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act for the reasons assigned by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar that the land declared
surplus under the ceiling act is not available in the said village. Copies of the Reports submitted by the District Magistrates of the State are collectively
being annexed as Annexure CA-2 to this affidavit.
That with regard to the Point No. (v) is concerned, which is in respect of the cases where land is being permitted to be used either temporarily or
permanently and it will be indicated as to what are the terms, on the basis of which the land has been permitted, namely, whether it is temporary or
permanent as well as whether any conditions are attached to the use of land under Section 25 of the Act, it is respectfully submitted that as per the
information received from all the District Magistrates of the State, the land has been allotted under Section 25 of the Ceiling Act for the purpose of
public uses to the Government Department on permanent basis through Lease Pattas and land allotted to the landless persons is as per Rule 59 of
Ceiling Rules. For kind perusal, copies of Pattas are collectively being annexed as Annexure CA- 3 to this affidavit.
It is further submitted that in Tehsil Kashipur of District Udham Singh Nagar total 170.882 hectare land has been allotted to 231 families for their
livelihood for agricultural purposes. The State Government issued a Govt. Order dated 4th April 2016 by which 485.97 Acre (147.013 hectares) of
land declared as surplus under the Ceiling Act situated at Khurpiya Farm, District Udham Singh Nagar has been reserved for allotment in favour of
public purposes, Govt. Departments and landless persons, however, at present some litigation are pending before various competent Court of law. The
responsibility assigned to the Uttarakhand House and Urban Development Authority and it has been directed that the information regarding
construction/encroachment and use of the said land would be provided to the Revenue Department from time to time. Copy of the Govt. Order dated
4th April 2016 is being annexed as Annexure CA- 4 to this affidavit.
That in view of the facts state above, it is clear that the answering respondent has complied with the provisions of the Act and there is no
unfettered discretion in utilization and distribution of the surplus land. Therefore, the present Public Interest Litigation is liable to be closed.â€
Subsequently also, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein documents have been produced. As far as the Scheduled Tribes of
District Udham Singh Nagar are concerned, perusal of the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit would show that 8 persons remain to be given
land under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960 read with Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamildari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act of 1950â€). The reason appears to be that in terms of the law, there is no land available. It is, at once, relevant to notice the
relevant provisions contained in Section 198 of the Act of 1950, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. The same reads as follows:
“198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197. - (1) In the admission of persons to land as bhumidhar with
non-transferable rights or asami under Section 195 or Section 197 (hereinafter in this section referred to as allotment of land) the Land Management
Committee shall, subject to any order made by a Court under Section 178 observe the following order of preference :
(a) landless widow, sons, unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle of a person who has lost his life by enemy action while in active service
in the Armed Forces of the Union;
(b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union;
(c) a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(d) any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle;
(e) a bhumidhar or asami residing in the circle and holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres);
(f) a landless person residing in the circle who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in the Armed Forces of
the Union;
(g) a landless freedom fighter residing in the circle who has not been granted political pension;
(h) any other landless agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe not residing in the circle but residing in the Nyaya
Panchayat Circle referred to in Section 42 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.â€
As far as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016 is concerned, the issue, though similar, has got a different dimension as well. In this case, the
petitioners have called in question the decision taken by the State to transfer surplus land to the State Industrial Development Corporation of
Uttarakhand Limited (hereinafter referred        to as “SIDCULâ€), which is the fourth respondent. This is besides seeking a
direction to issue Ceiling Pattas of the declared surplus land of District
Udham Singh Nagar in favour of the landless agricultural labourers of District Udham Singh Nagar under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960. In this
case counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4 wherein it has been stated as follows:
“3. That the following brief facts are necessary to be brought on record for just decision in the case:
a. A total of 1002.15 acre of land of Khurpia Farm, Kiccha comprising of several khasra numbers was transferred by the State Government to
SIIDCUL vide GO no. 345/XVIII (II)/2016-14 (04) 2013 dated 04.04.2016.
Later, a modified GO no.667/XVII (II)/2016-18(04)/121/2015 dated 06.07.2016 was issued regarding the same. Copy of GO no. 3415/XVIII
(II)/2016-14 (04) 2013 and GO no. 667/XVII (II)/2016-18(04)/121/2015 are being filed herewith and are marked respectively as Annexure no. 1 & 2.
b. This 1002.15 acres of land has been transferred to SIIDCUL for a total consideration of Rs. 1,58,98,33,4000/-for the establishment of Industrial
Estate. The transferred land is, in fact, on the spot, lying uncultivated from last more than 2 decades, as per the information supplied by the elderly
people in the vicinity. Anything contrary pleaded in the writ petition is absolutely denied.
c. A lump sum initial amount of Rs. 100 crores has already been paid to the State Government of Uttarakhand from the loan of Rs. 100 crores
sanctioned by HUDCO in favour of SIIDCUL and the balance amount Rs.58.25 crores has to be paid in installments within a period of 5 years.
d. The industrial estate is to be used for the purpose for establishing industrial units. [The units proposed to be established would not cause any loss to
the environment. In any case under the pollution laws, every Industry has to
take environmental clearance before installation/establishment.]
e. The land in question has been under consideration before this Hon’ble Court in the Writ Petition no. 2695/2015 (M/S) filed M/s Kesar
Enterprises Ltd against State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Under the orders of this Hon’ble Court after exercise of the choice by the petitioner therein,
the surplus land was transferred to SIIDCUL. The SIIDCUL, after due permission of the Hon’ble Court, was impleaded as one of the
respondents in that case.â€
The State has also filed a counter affidavit wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:
“4. That it is pertinent to submit here that a total of 612.524 hectares of land of Khurpia Farm had been declared surplus in villages Khurpia,
Bandia, Devaria, Gauri Kalan and Bhooda Gauri. It is stated that out of the aforesaid surplus land a total of 002.15 acres has been allotted to the
respondent no. 4 vide Government Order no. 345 dated 04.04.2016. A copy of the Government Order no. 345 dated 04.04.2016 is being annexed
herewith as
Annexure C.A.-1.
That it is further submitted that vide another Government Order no. 667 dated 04.04.2016 a total of 485.97 acres of the aforesaid surplus land has
been kept for being allotted to the landless S.C./S.T. and for rehabilitation. A copy of Government Order no. 667 dated 04.04.2016 is being annexed
herewith as Anenxure C.A.2.
That it is also stated that apart from the aforesaid, vide Government Order no. 666 dated 04.04.2016, a total of 10 acres of the aforesaid surplus
land has been allotted free of cost to the Rural Development Department for the purposes of Indira Aawas Yojona beneficiaries. A copy of
Government Order no. 666 dated 04.04.2016 is being annexed herewith as Annexure C.A.-3â€
Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016 very strenuously argued that the Act of 1960
must be perceived in the light of provisions contained under Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution
of India reads as follows:
“39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.â€" The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securingâ€
(a) ………
Â
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;â€
He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division,Â
Nainital, U.P. and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281.
Paragraph no. 52 of the said judgment being relevant, we extract the same as follows:
“52. Proceedings under the Ceiling Act are not adversarial as are proceedings in suit. The Ceiling Act is a legislation to give effect to the Directive
Principles contained clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. The State is advised by the Directive Principles contained in the Constitution
to take necessary legislative measures so as to ensure social justice by equitable distribution of ownership and control of material resources and avoid
concentration of wealth and means of production in few hands. The laudable social objectives sought to be achieved by the ceiling legislation is to take
surplus land from the holders and distribute the same to the landless agricultural labourers and peasants surviving on agriculture. In applying the
principles of res judicata, therefore, to the ceiling proceedings, the object of the Act cannot be lost sight of. All principles of res judicata contained in
Section 11 of the CPC cannot be strictly and rigorously made applicable to ceiling proceedings. Section 38- B introduced by Amendment Act of 1976
with the transitory provisions made both in the Amendment Act No. 18 of 1973 and Act No. 20 of 1976 is a departure from the provisions of Section
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and indicate non-applicability of bar of res judicata in ceiling proceedings under the Act.â€
He would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in (1980) Revenue Decisions 227. Therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the constitutionality of the Act in question (Act of
1960). While discussing the matter, the Court, inter alia, held as follows:
“4. The anatomy of the Act must be scanned as a preliminary exercise so that the Constitutional infirmities alleged may be appreciated in the
proper setting. The long title gives the primary purpose of the Act as imposition of ceilings on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh and the Preamble
amplifies it further. All this is tersely spelt out in the Statement of objects and Reasons which runs thus:-
“With a view to provide for more equitable distribution of land by making the same available to the extent possible to landless agricultural labourers
and to provide for cultivation on cooperative basis and to conserve part of the available resources in land so as to increase the production and up
reserve stock of foodgrains against lean years by carrying on cultivation on scientific lines in State-owned farms, it is expedient to impose Ceiling on
existing large land holdings. It is necessary to provide some land to the village communities for their common needs, such as establishment of fuel and
fodder reserves. The Bill is therefore being introduced to promote the economic interest of the weaker section of community and to subserve the
common good.â€
It is wise to remember that fatal flaws silenced by earlier rulings cannot survive after death because a decision does not lose its authority ""merely
because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned"". And none of these misfortunes can be imputed to Bharati's case
(supra). For these reasons, we proceed to consider the contentions of counsel on the clear assumption that Art. 31Ais good. Its sweep is wide and
indubitably embraces legislation on land ceilings. Long years ago, in Ranjit v. State, a Constitution Bench, speaking through Hidayatullah, J., dwelt on
the wide amplitude of Art. 31A, referred to Precedents of this Court on agrarian reform vis a vis Art. 31A and concluded that equitable distribution of
lands, annihilation of monopoly of ownership by imposition of ceiling and regeneration of the rural economy by diverse planning and strategies are
covered by the armour of Art. 31A. We may quote a part:
“The scheme of rural development today envisages not only equitable distribution of land so that there is no undue imbalance in society resulting in
a landless class on the one hand and a concentration of land in the hands of a few on the other, but envisages also the raising of economic standards
and bettering rural health and social conditions. Provisions for the assignment of lands to village Panchayat for the use of the general community, or
for hospitals, schools, manure pits, tanning grounds etc. which (sic) enure for the benefit of rural population must be considered to be an essential part
of the redistribution of holdings and open lands to which no objection is apparently taken. If agrarian reforms are to succeed, more distribution of lands
to the landless is not enough. There must be a proper planning of rural economy and conditions and a body like the village panchayat is best designed
to promote rural welfare than individual owners of small portions of lands. Further the village panchayat is an authority for purposes of part III as was
conceded before us and it has the protection of Art. 31A because of this character even if the taking over of Shamlat deb amounts to acquisition. ......
The setting of a body or agricultural artisans (such as the village carpenter, the village blacksmith, the village tanner, ferrier, wheelwright, barber,
washerman etc.) is a part of rural planning and can be comprehended in a scheme of agrarian reforms. It is a trite saying that India lives in villages
and a scheme to make villages self-sufficient cannot but be regarded as part of the larger reforms which consolidation of holdings, fixing of ceiling on
lands, distribution of surplus lands and utilising of vacant and waste lands contemplate.â€
This view has been reinforced by the later pronouncement of a Constitution Bench in the Gwalior Rayon Case, emphatically expressing support for
the conceptual sweep of agrarian reform vis-Ã -vis Art. 31A. The proposition, therefore, is invulnerable that Art. 31A repulses all invasion on ""ceiling
legislation"" (armed with Arts. 14, 19 and 31).â€
Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner in Special Appeal No. 340 of 2014 would submit that the appellant is one of
the 39 landless labourers in District Udham Singh Nagar. They have been fighting for land. They, in fact, even intervened in the ceiling proceedings
and they are yet to enjoy the fruits of their endeavours. In their case, it appears that they have earlier filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by
directing representation to be considered. The representation has been rejected. Apparently, the reason, which is given, is that the land in question has
been made over for the purpose of running a Polytechnic Institute and they have been ousted. Subsequently, it is also stated in the supplementary
affidavit that they were not among the persons for whom meeting was called. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition taking the view
that the appellant has not been able to establish any legal right to claim allotment. Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would argue
that appellant does indeed have a legal right, as contained under Section 27 of the Act of 1960 and, therefore, he submits that the case of the appellant
must be considered for allotment.
12.As far as the land mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit of the State in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016 is concerned, it is
submitted by the State Counsel that the land, as promised, is intended to be given to the landless labourers.
The main question, which we have been called upon to decide, is whether on a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1960,
which we have already adverted to, is there an overriding right created in favour of persons mentioned in Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960 read with
Section 198 of the Act of 1950 to be given land or is it only one of the objectives to be achieved. Petitioners and the appellant are one and are
vociferously fighting over the rights of the landless. They contend that the right of the persons mentioned in Section 27(3) are to be honoured before
other interests are considered. Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016 even to the extent of
pointing out that making of land available to SIDCUL will fall foul of Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. He would submit that any
industry, even if it is allowed to be started in such land, can only be agro-based industries.
After having considered the arguments, we are of the view that even on a harmonious consideration, which indeed this Court is obliged to
undertake, we cannot come to the conclusion that the Legislature has intended to create a situation when a land is vested in it under the Act of 1960, it
is only after providing land for the persons mentioned in Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960 that anything else can be done. This interpretation of ours is
based on the following reasoning:
Sections 25 and 27 of the Act of 1960 figure in Chapter IV under the heading “Disposal and Settlement of Surplus Landâ€. Section 25 of the Act
of 1960 unambiguously provides that the State Government may, instead of settling any surplus land in accordance with the provisions of this Act, use,
or permit the use, either temporarily or permanently, of the whole or any portion of such land for any purpose for which such land could have been
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Here, we must pause and break down the said section. We must but be detained by the absoluteness
by which the section is couched. We notice, in particular, the words “instead of settling any surplus land in accordance with the provisions of this
Actâ€. The provision, which is contemplated for the said purpose, is Section 27 of the Act of 1960, which deals with permanent settlement and the
Legislature has proceeded to give the power to the State to either temporarily or permanently make use of the land under Section 25 of the Act of
1960. We cannot but be impressed by the use of the words “whole or any portion of such landâ€. Therefore, it is free to make use of the whole of
the land for any purpose, for which the land could have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We may, at this juncture, also, profitably
refer to the Preamble. It reads as follows:
“An act to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh and certain other matters connected therewith.
Whereas it is necessary in the interest of the community to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural
labourers and for other public purposes as best to subserve the common good;
And whereas a more equitable distribution of land is essential;
And, therefore, it is expedient to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the aforementioned purposes;â€
The Preamble, also clearly appears to suggest that the Act is being enacted for increasing agricultural production and to provide land for the landless
agricultural labourers and also for other public purposes.
While, it is true that a Preamble can be used as a key to understand the provisions of the Act, in the case of an ambiguity, in particular; when what
follows in the Act is clear, it is settled law that the Preamble cannot control the provisions of the Act. As far as this case is concerned, even the
Preamble itself is a preface of what is to follow in the Act as it unambiguously adverts also to other public purposes. These words “other public
purposes†are sought to be achieved through the mechanism of Section 25 of the Act of 1960, which we have adverted to. Coming to Section 27 of
the Act of 1960 itself, a perusal of Section 27(1) indicates that the State Government is obliged to settle, out of the surplus land, land for the purpose of
cause of a community in such villages where land is either not available or even if it is available, it is below 15 acres, subject to the limitation that the
land so settled cannot exceed 15 acres. Though the impression one gets by reading Section 27(1) of the Act of 1960 is that it is the mandatory duty to
settle such land for the purpose under sub-section (1) of Section 27, a perusal of provision contained under sub-section (2) of Section 27 may yield a
different result. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 categorically declares that the State Government may either settle any surplus land in
accordance with sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or use or permit its use in accordance with Section 25 of the Act of 1960. The matter does not end
there. The State Government has also the power to manage any surplus land. Lastly, it has also got otherwise the power to deal with it in such
manner, as it thinks fit. We find that the words in sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 are wide and confer large amount of discretion with
the State Government, no doubt, to utilize it for the various purposes, which are mentioned therein. The State Government is free therefore, for
instance to settle the land under sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960. We may even proceed on the basis that it may not be a mere matter
of discretion; it may also be coupled with the duty for the reason that the public interest that is sought to be sub-served by Section 27(1) of the Act of
1960 is not qua any individual, but it seeks to sub-serve the interest of the community at large and, therefore, it may be an ideal situation whether the
State Government may feel obliged to settle land under sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960. It certainly can use or permit its use in
accordance with Section 25 of the Act of 1960, which we have independently considered. Equally, it has the right to manage or otherwise deal with
such land, as it thinks fit.
We have a few words to throw light on this provision. Public land is a precious natural resource for the State. Land, which is vested with the
Government under the Act of 1960, may be required for various governmental or public purposes. It may be required to house various government
offices and the Government may be of the perceived view that future developments like expansion of existing projects and existing buildings may
require land to be retained by it. It is common knowledge that acquisition of land where the Government does not have the land for public purpose is a
fairly lengthy process, involving in it litigation. This is besides the huge amount, which the Government is compelled to pay by way of compensation
and other benefits under the Act, providing for acquisition. In such circumstances, when the Legislature itself has provided that Government may use
or permit its user to manage or otherwise deal with the land, we cannot render those wide words meaningless or deprive the Government of the
legitimate purposes, for which the land may be used. It is in this regard that we, in particular, derive fortification by the residuary clause contained in
sub-section (2) as the Legislature has empowered the Government to take a decision to deal with the surplus land vested in it, in such manner, as it
thinks fit. We may add a word of caution, though, with the words “as it thinks fitâ€, inasmuch as it may appear to be wide, but it comes with the
caveat that it can be used only for public good. Undoubtedly, the State Government would be duty bound to remind itself of the light, which Article 39
(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India sheds in this context. We may further notice the opening words of Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1960, which is
the sheet anchor of the petitioners and the appellant. The words are “any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance
with the order of preference under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Act of 1950.
On a conspectus of Section 25 and Section 27 of the Act of 1960; and the Preamble and; Section 198 of the Act of 1950, which we have referred
to, we are of the view that the situation calls for a balanced view. Neither extreme position may be adopted nor accepted by this Court. In other
words, we cannot accept the position that the Act contemplates a complete leaning in favour of the persons contemplated under Section 27 (3) of the
Act of 1960. At the same time, we cannot take the view that the State Government will be absolutely free or totally free to do as it likes ignoring the
various provisions of the Act and the object, which animated the Legislature, which enacted it. In other words, it is our view that the State
Government and the Collector (who, it may be noted under Section 26 of the Act of 1960 is the person, who is to act in accordance with the provisions
of Section 27), inter alia, are duty bound to consider the provisions of Section 25, 27 and the Preamble of the Act of 1960 in the context of the need to
cater to the constituents, who are protected under Section 27(3) as also the various claims based on public interest, which would arise under Section
25 read with Section 27 (2) of the Act of 1960. We have indicated that the State Government may decide to manage or otherwise deal with the land in
such manner, as it thinks fit.
Does it mean, we must ask ourselves a question, that after the land is vested, after elaborate Ceiling Proceedings, that the Government will not
discharge the duties under Section 27(1) and (3) of the Act of 1960? Is it a duty, at all, that can be enforced by a mandamus? It is here, that we take
the view that though there is no absolute right, as such, for the persons coming under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960 that the land should be
distributed, as provided under Section 27 (3) read with Section 198 of the Act of 1950, this is certainly a matter, which must inform the decision
making process of the State Government and the Collector. There can be no doubt that the Act itself contemplates as one of the objects to be the
distribution of the surplus land for the landless labourers and other persons mentioned under Section 198 of the Act of 1950. In fact, a perusal of the
categories of persons mentioned under Section 198 of the Act of 1950 along with the priority to be observed therein would clearly indicate that one of
the cardinal objectives, for which the Act itself was framed, was to take over land, which was lying in a few hands with the view to redistribute the
land among those, who needed it the most. It is in this regard that Article 39 (b) and (c) is to be understood. Article 39 (b) and (c), as noted, brings
about a societal revolution by law, which is one, in fact, what the Constitution contemplates in its Preamble. It is as a part of distributive justice, which
cannot be attained only by political freedom or independence, but also by achieving economic independence for its citizens that the State has brought
about the law of compulsory taking over the land in excess of the statutory limit. Therefore, there can be no doubt that distribution of land under
Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960 is of sublime importance and must be uppermost in the mind of both the State Government and the Collector. Again
we must add here that this, however, does not confer on any person a legal right to insist that land, which is available, should be distributed under
Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1960. It is here that a decision is to be taken by the State Government within the meaning of Section 25 read with Section
27(2) of the Act of 1960. What we intend is that when a decision is taken, the State Government must make itself aware of the ground realities in the
form of the persons contemplated under Section 198 of the Act of 1950 available in various districts of the State, taking into consideration their plight
and take a decision so as to fulfill their aspirations for the fulfillment of which, in fact, the Legislature has also enacted the law. In other words, it will
be a case where the Court would expect the State Government and the Collector to have a clear cut policy, which should also contain the element of
vision for the future and the decision must be so taken that the limited resources in the form of land vested under the Act are put to best possible
optimum use. Undoubtedly, as we have already pointed out, the interest of persons covered under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960 must remain a
dominant consideration, without, however, conferring a legal right on them and it is subject to the power of the State Government under Sections 25
and 27(2) of the Act of 1960.
As far as the judgment in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC
281 is concerned, the Court therein was not deciding the lis, which we are called upon to decide. The interplay between Sections 25 and 27 did not fall
for consideration before the Court in the said decision. As far as the decision in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in (1980) Revenue Decisions 227 is concerned, there also the Court while upholding the constitutionality of the Act, undoubtedly, culled out
the salient features of the Act. We do not think that we should be detained further by consideration of the aforesaid case law.
Therefore, as far as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 169 of 2013 is concerned, on the State-wise basis, we find that the figures show that 6328.7167
hectares of the land has been vested in the State under the Act. As far as District Udham Singh Nagar is concerned, it is stated that 3889.7888
Hectares of land stand vested. Out of the same, in District Udham Singh Nagar, 1184.635 Hectares of land has been utilized under Section 25 of the
Act of 1960; 1745.9147 Hectares of land has been distributed under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960. It is not as if that no land has been distributed.
In fact, it is also to be noticed that though earlier a counter affidavit was filed by the Collector, namely, that no land has been given to Scheduled
Tribes, 301 Scheduled Tribes, who are landless, have been given land in District Udham Singh Nagar. As far as the 8 Scheduled Tribe persons are
concerned, though it is true that they are entitled under Section 198 of the Act of 1950 [under the third priority], the hurdle appears to be that there is
no land available, as contemplated under the Act. We say no more about the same and it is the matter to be worked out in terms of the law applicable.
As far as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2016 is concerned, the challenge is to the decision taken by the authority to make over land to SIDCUL.
SIDCUL is a State Agency to promote industries within the State of Uttarakhand; it has got industrial estates. The argument of Mr. Atul Kumar
Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that industries can be legally premised only if they are agro-based, is only to be stated to be rejected. We
see absolutely no basis for the argument that when land is taken under the Act and it is given to SIDCUL, it should be only for agro-based industries.
We would think that this argument would be diluting the width of the provisions contained under Section 25 and also under Section 27(2) of the Act of
1960. We also reject the argument of Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner based on Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of
India. The invocation of Article 39 (b) and (c) in the context of the Act of 1960 can only be to justify the enacting of the Act. This is for the reason
that the land was concentrated, in the view of the Legislature, in the hands of a few. That is what Article 39(b) and (c) proscribes. The Act was made
so as to take away the land, which was found to be in excess with certain persons, on the basis of the Ceiling Limit and to profitably employ it for
public good by distributing it among the landless and other deprived sections or to use it for public good within the meaning of Sections 25 and 27(2) of
the Act of 1960. Therefore, the said argument has no legs to stand on. Uttarakhand primarily lives in its hills; it also contains plain areas. The making
available of land to an agency like SIDCUL for bringing about a change in the number of people, who could be profitably employed in industries can
but be described as a laudable object. Industries generate employment. It also brings in Revenue for the State, by way of various taxes. All of this
cannot be said to be unconnected with public interest or public good. Land, which is vested under the Act, can certainly be used for the purpose, for
which the land may be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, if the same is considered making available land to an agency like
SIDCUL and, which, in turn, would be expected to allot the land to entrepreneurs, who would set up industries in the hill State, which this State is, it
can only be said to be in public interest. It would certainly be justifiable under Section 27 of the Act of 1960. Though the petitioner has raised a ground
challenging the validity of Section 25 of the Act, there is no relief sought against Section 25, and Section 25 must be taken as it is. We have already
placed interpretation on Sections 27 of the Act of 1960. The first relief sought by the petitioner is that land be distributed for the purposes under
Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1960. What the writ petitioner is seeking is a mandamus, which presupposes the existence of a legal right of the petitioner
and the corresponding legal duty of the answering respondent. We have already, while discussing, taken into view as to what is the effect of Section
27 read with Section 28 of the Act of 1960. In this case a mandamus is sought along with a direction against the arrangement entered into with the
SIDCUL. As far as the arrangement is concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the same and the writ petition in the said regard must stand
dismissed. We may also notice that, in fact, the notification, by which the land has been made over to SIDCUL has not been specifically challenged.
Though, we may not be inclined to take the view that there is a legal duty to make available land as prayed for by the petitioner, we have noticed
the stand taken by the State Government in regard to District Udham Singh Nagar. In fact, the State Counsel, again, we repeat, has reiterated before
us, after getting instructions, that the said land will be made available for the persons covered by Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960. It is brought to our
notice that the modalities regarding the exact extent of the land is being worked out. We expect that the authorities will act expeditiously and will not
delay the distribution of land under Section 27 (3) to the persons eligible as per law. Further, we see no reason to give any direction.
Coming to Special Appeal No. 340 of 2014, in this case also, the observations, which we have made aforesaid, will apply with full force to the
appellant also. The land, which the appellant, apparently, sought, relief in regard to, has been made available, apparently, under Section 25Â Â Â Â
read with Section 27(2) of the Act of 1960, for the use of Polytechnic. Making available land for the use of Polytechnic, an educational institution, will
certainly come within the meaning of Section 25 read with Section 27(2) of the Act of 1960. We do not think that the appellant can claim for himself a
legal right despite the struggle, which the appellant would submit that he has fought even by impleading in the Ceiling Proceedings to see that the land
is vested with the State. Therefore, the rejection of the representation on the ground that the land is not available for distribution and the finding by the
learned Single Judge that there is no legal right, as such, appeals to us. We only make it clear that the appellant, if he is otherwise entitled, will be
considered as and when the case of similar persons is considered under Section 27 (3) of the Act.
The writ petitions and the appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to cost.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.