Uttarakhand High Court
Km. Meenakshi Agarwal & Others ... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7169-DB
Judgment Reserved on 05.08.2025
Judgment Delivered on 13.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014
Km. Meenakshi Agarwal & others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Shafy Advocate for
the appellants.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Yogesh
Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
1. Writ petitioners have filed this intra-court
appeal challenging judgment and order dated
21.02.2014 rendered by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005. By the said
judgment, their writ petition was partly allowed,
notice issued to them by Collector, Udham Singh
Nagar, on 12.08.2005 was set aside and the
Collector was directed to initiate proceedings afresh
as per law and in view of Section 6-A of U.P.
Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958
(U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959) (hereinafter referred as
"G.E.T.A. Act").
2. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants at the very outset
2025:UHC:7169-DB
submitted that appellants are challenging the
judgment rendered by learned Single Judge qua the
determination made in para 29 only and they are
satisfied with the remaining judgment. Para 29 of
the impugned judgment is extracted below:-
"29. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, which can be said to be acceptable, is
that 30 acres area has been wrongly mentioned in the
notice and, therefore, on this count, the notice is not valid.
The impugned notice issued by the Collector, on this
count only, is set aside. Writ Petition No. 962 of 2005
(MS) and Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS) are partly
allowed and the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, is
directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law and in view of Section 6-A, quoted above, for
determination of the ceiling area and separation of
surplus area and to take steps accordingly against those
tenure holders, who were recorded at the time of
determination of lease or their successors in interest."
3. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that in view of
provision contained in Section 6-A of G.E.T.A Act,
not only the ceiling area has to be determined as
per provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961)
(hereinafter referred as "Ceiling Act"), but the
procedure as prescribed in Ceiling Act and Rules
framed thereunder has to be followed for
determination and demarcation of ceiling area,
separation of surplus area, and taking of possession
over surplus area, etc.
4. In the writ petition, appellants have challenged
the Award dated 10.08.2005 given by Kumaon
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital as
Arbitrator and they also challenged a notice issued
2025:UHC:7169-DB
in G.E.T.A. Form 10, under Rule 23 of U.P.
Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Rules,
1960.
5. The impugned judgment reveals that challenge
to the arbitral award, rendered by Commissioner,
was given up by appellants before learned Single
Judge. Before this Court also, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
appellants are not challenging the award and their
challenge is limited to the observation made in para
29 which provides that proceedings for determining
ceiling area have to be initiated under Section 6-A
of G.E.T.A Act.
6. For better understanding of the case, brief
background facts would be necessary, which are
stated herein below.
7. State Government leased out about 5200 acres
of land, situate in 12 different villages of Rudrapur
pargana of erstwhile District Nainital for a term of
99 years effective from 01.10.1932, in favour of
one Sri Prag Narayan Aggarwal. Mr. Prag Narayan
Aggarwal passed away in 1938, leaving behind six
sons. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in his
counter affidavit dated 30.06.2005 filed in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005 by appellants, has
stated that out of the land leased out to Sri Prag
Narayan Aggarwal, 1362 acres situate in village
Maharajpur and Shripur was taken back by the
State Government for rehabilitation of refugees and
2025:UHC:7169-DB
was thereafter allotted to different persons.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that in lieu of 1362 acres of land which
was taken back by the State Government, about
200 acre land was allotted to legal heirs of late Prag
Narayan Aggarwal in village Bandia; however,
learned State Counsel disputes this submission and
submits that only 177.76 acres of bhumidhari land
was allotted to the heirs of late Prag Narayan
Aggarwal in village Anandpur and Bandia.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submits that since Prag Narayan Aggarwal was also
having land and property in other districts of
erstwhile State of U.P., therefore, as per settlement
arrived at between his successors, land in question
came to the share of two sons of late Prag Narayan
Aggarwal, namely Shiv Narayan Aggarwal and
Karmendra Narayan Aggarwal. Mr. Anurag Bisaria,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 1487 of 2024, however, disputes
this submission made by Mr. T.A. Khan, learned
Senior Counsel.
10. Appellants are unmarried daughters of
Karmendra Narayan Aggarwal.
11. In the year 1958, State legislature enacted a
legislation for abolition of thekedari system in
Government estates with the object of facilitating
the introduction of land reforms therein. The
2025:UHC:7169-DB
legislation is known as U.P. Government Estates
Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (U.P. Act No. 1 of
1959), which was enforced on 20.01.1959.
12. Section 3 of the said Act provided for
determination of leases by the State Government,
by issuing an order published in the official Gazette.
Section 4 thereof enumerated the consequences of
determination of leases. Section 4(b) as originally
enacted in G.E.T.A Act, is reproduced below:
"where under and in accordance with the terms of
the lease, the lessee has brought any land included
in the lease under his personal cultivation, the
lessee shall become a hereditary tenant of such
land liable to pay rent equal to the rent calculated at
hereditary rates applicable on the date immediately
preceding the date of determination.
Provided that where the total area of such land
held by the lessee exceeds 30 acres, for the lessee
shall be a hereditary tenant of only 30 acres area
and the excess area, to be separated and
demarcated from the 30 acres area by the Assistant
Collector in charge of the sub-division on the
application of the lessee or the Collector shall
become and be deemed to be vacant land and the
lessee shall be liable to ejectment from such excess
area."
13. In exercise of power under Section 3 of G.E.T.A
Act, State Government issued a notification on
30.06.1966 determining all leases in respect of
Government Estates in 35 villages of Tarai and
Bhabar Government Estates, District Nainital w.e.f.
01.07.1966. Thus, the lease of land granted in
favour of predecessor in interest of the appellants
also stood determined w.e.f. 01.07.1966. However,
validity of G.E.T.A Act was challenged by separate
writ petitions and a learned Single Judge of Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in a judgment rendered in
2025:UHC:7169-DB
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3043 of 1966
declared G.E.T.A Act as unconstitutional. The order
issued under Section 3 of G.E.T.A Act was also
declared to be void.
14. After the aforesaid judgment, State Legislature
enacted U.P. Government Estates Thekedari
Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1970
(U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970). By Section 2 of U.P. Act
No. 28 of 1970, U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959 (G.E.T.A.
Act) was repealed and re-enacted with effect from
20.06.1964 with the amendments set out in
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Validation Act (U.P. Act
No. 28 of 1970).
15. By U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970, new clause (b) in
Section 4 of the principal Act was substituted and
after Section 6 of the principal Act, two new
Sections, numbered as 6A and 6B were inserted.
Clause (b) of Section 4 and also Section 6A and 6B
after amendment by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970 are
reproduced below:
"4(b) where under and in accordance with the
terms of the lease, the lessee has brought any
land included in the lease under his personal
cultivation, the lessee shall become hereditary
tenant of such land, or where such land exceeds
the ceiling area, then of so much of such land as
in aggregation with any other land held by him in
Uttar Pradesh makes up the ceiling area, and
shall be liable as such to pay rent equal or
proportionate, as the case may be, to the rent, if
any, payable in terms of the lease.
6-A. In respect of any land included in the lease
which under and in accordance with the terms of
the lease the lessee has brought under his
personal cultivation, the determination and
2025:UHC:7169-DB
demarcation of the ceiling area and the surplus
area, the acquisition of and the taking of
possession over the surplus area, the
determination and payment of compensation for
the acquisition of the surplus area, and all other
matters connected therewith shall be governed
by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
6-B. The State Government shall issue a
notification under section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
applying the whole or any provisions of that Act,
with exceptions or modifications, to Government
Estates in respect of which an order is made
under section 3 of this Act, not later than three
months from the date of such order, and in the
case of Government estates in respect of which
an order has been made or purports to have
been made before the commencement of the
Uttar Pradesh Government Estates Thekedari
Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act,
1970, not later than three months from such
commencement."
16. By Section 6 of U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970, action
taken under the provisions of the principal Act
before commencement of re-enactment and
validation Act, including determination of lease
under Section 3, were declared to be valid. Section
6 of the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970 was considered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Lal v.
IInd ADJ, 1995 reported in Supp (2) SCC 394.
Paragraph Nos. 9 & 10 of the said judgment are
reproduced below:-
"9. As the facts in the present case reveal, the Principal
Act was extended to the district of Nainital by
notification dated 17-6-1965 w.e.f. 26-6-1965. By
notification dated 30-6-1966, issued under Section 3 of
that Act, the lease of the appellant was determined.
The High Court declared as unconstitutional the
provisions of that Act and hence the Act was amended
and re-enacted w.e.f. 20-6-1964 by U.P. Government
Estates Thekedari Abolition (Re-enactment and
Validation) Act, 1970. Section 6 of the Validation Act
validated anything done or purported to have been
2025:UHC:7169-DB
done and any action taken or purported to have been
taken under the provisions of the Principal Act, viz.,
U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act. That
section reads as follows:
"6. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of any Court or Tribunal to the contrary, anything
done or purporting to have been done and any action
taken or purporting to have been taken under any
provision of the principal Act before the
commencement of this Act, including, in particular,
any notification under sub-section (3) of Section 1,
any determination of lease under Section 3, or the
recovery of any rents or other dues under Section 4
or the taking over of possession or charge of land or
of books, accounts or other documents under Section
6 of that Act, shall be deemed to be, and always to
have been as valid as if the provisions of this Act
were in force at all material times."
10. In view of the said express validating provision, the
notifications which were issued under the Principal Act
in terms revived with the revival of the Principal Act
and hence the action taken under the said notifications
also stood validated. It was not necessary to reissue
the notifications after the enactment of the Validation
Act. To argue to the contrary would render the
provisions of Section 6 of the Validation Act otiose."
17. The predecessors in interest of the appellants
challenged the validating Act i.e. U.P. Act No. 28 of
1970 by filing Writ Petition No. 4567 of 1970, which
was disposed of vide order dated 01.05.1979 in
view of the statement made by learned Advocate
General that so far as the land under personal
cultivation of the lessee is concerned, the same
shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions
of Ceiling Act, as amended from time to time.
Insofar as the buildings of the lessee are
concerned, they shall be dealt with in accordance
with the provisions of Section 4(h) of Government
Estate Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 as re-enacted
by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970. The order passed by
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
2025:UHC:7169-DB
4567 of 1970 is reproduced below:
"The Advocate General, appearing for the
respondents, states that the proceedings under the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960,
as amended from time to time, are pending. So far as
the land under the personal cultivation of the lessee is
concerned the same shall be dealt with in accordance
with the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended from time to
time. So far as the buildings of the lessee are
concerned they shall be dealt with in accordance with
the provisions of Section 4(h) of Government Estate
Thekedari Abolition Act (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959) as re-
enacted by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970. Shri Raja Ram
Agarwal, appearing for the petitioners, states that in
view of the statement made by the Advocate General
the writ petition is not pressed at this stage. In view
of the statement made by counsel for the parties
referred to above the writ petition is dismissed and
the interim order dated 21st September, 1970, is
vacated. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of
this order may be supplied to counsel for the parties
on payment of usual charges."
18. Rudrapur pargana, where the land leased out
to Sri Prag Narayan Aggarwal is situate, was earlier
part of District Nainital. Due to re-organization of
District Nainital in the year 1995, it is now part of
revenue District Udham Singh Nagar. After State
reorganization, appellants filed Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 2253 of 2001 before this Court, seeking the
following reliefs:
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 03.04.2001 passed by the District
Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, by
means of which it has allegedly been directed to
recover the alleged dues against the petitioners as
arrears of land revenue based on the audit report
dated 19.11.1999 after summoning the original of
the same from the respondents.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
recovery proceedings initiated against the
petitioners on the basis of the impugned order
2025:UHC:7169-DB
dated 3.4.2001 passed by the District
Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar.
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned citation
to appear issued in Z.A. Form No. 69 dated
1.6.2001 as is contained in Annexure No. 4 to the
writ petition.
(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to enforce the impugned recovery
proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance
of the impugned order dated 3.4.2001 passed by
the District Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh
Nagar, and also in pursuance of the impugned
citation dated 1.6.2001 and further not to take
any coercive measures against the petitioners."
19. Writ Petition (M/S) 2253 of 2001 was disposed
of by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 15.06.2001 in view of the arbitration clause
contained in clause (17) of the lease deed, with
direction to appellants to appear before the
Commissioner on 06.07.2001, who shall decide the
matter or shall get the matter decided by some
other officer of his status.
20. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005,
appellants challenged the notice issued to them by
District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on
12.08.2005. By the said notice, appellants were
informed that as per Section 4 of G.E.T.A. Act, they
are allowed to retain only 30 acres land out of the
land leased out to their predecessor in interest and
the remaining land shall be deemed to be vacant,
therefore, they were asked to give choice in respect
of the plots they want to retain for themselves, the
2025:UHC:7169-DB
total area whereof may not exceed 30 acres. Said
notice was challenged by wife of late Karmendra
Narayan Aggarwal by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No.
962 of 2005; daughters of Karmendra Narayan
Aggarwal (appellants herein) challenged the said
notice by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005.
In all, four writ petitions were decided by the
impugned judgment; however, petitioners in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 963 of 2005 alone have filed
Appeal challenging the judgment rendered by
learned Single Judge.
21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that Section 6 of Ceiling Act
exempts certain land from imposition of ceiling e.g.
land used for industrial purpose, land occupied by a
residential house, land held by a Goshala of a public
nature etc., however, under G.E.T.A. Act, no land is
so exempted from being taken into consideration
for determining ceiling area applicable to, and the
surplus land of a tenure-holder. Thus he submits
that not only the ceiling limit has to be taken from
Ceiling Act, but the proceedings for determination
and demarcation of ceiling area has also to be
conducted as per Ceiling Act and the Rules framed
thereunder.
22. Per contra, learned Advocate General submits
that appellants are not the tenure-holders and their
status was that of a lessee and after determination
of their lease with effect from 01.07.1966, they lost
the status of lessee also. He submits that as per
2025:UHC:7169-DB
provisions of G.E.T.A. Act, particularly Section 4(b)
thereof, upon determination of lease, a lessee may
become hereditary tenant only of such part of the
leased land which he brought under his personal
cultivation, subject to the ceiling limit specified in
U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961.
23. Learned Advocate General further submits that
Section 4(h) of G.E.T.A. Act takes care of the
apprehension of the appellants and provides that
buildings situate on any land included in the lease
held by the lessee shall continue to be held by him
for the remainder of the period of lease, upon terms
and conditions to be prescribed.
24. State Government framed Rules in exercise of
rule making power under Section 18 of the G.E.T.A.
Act, which are known as U.P. Government Estates
Thekedari Abolition Rules, 1960 ("1960 Rules"). The
said Rules prescribe various forms to be used for
giving effect to the provisions of G.E.T.A. Act.
G.E.T.A. Form-1 is prescribed for issuing a
proclamation by the Collector under Section 3 for
information to all concerned that the lease shall
stand terminated on a specified date and the right,
title or interest of the lessee shall thereafter cease.
G.E.T.A. Form-3 is to be used for preparing the
statement showing the land in the personal
cultivation of the lessee.
25. Rule 23 and rule 24 of the aforesaid rules are
extracted below:
2025:UHC:7169-DB
"23. [Section 4 (b)].- The Collector shall prepare a
statement in G.E.T.A. Form 9 showing land held by the
lessee in cases where the aggregate area of such land
exceeds 30 acres. Thereafter, the Collector shall call upon
the lessee, by notice in G.E.T.A. Form 10, to select the
plots which he wishes to retain, the aggregate area
whereof shall not exceed 30 acres. After taking into
account the choice of the lessee, the Collector shall by
order passed in G.E.T.A. Form 11, specify the plots which
shall remain with the lessee as hereditary tenant and the
plots which shall be deemed to be vacant land. Where the
lessee does not turn or fails to select within the time
allowed, the Collector shall, with due regard to the
compactness of the holdings, specify the plots to be
retained by the lessee by order in G.E.T.A. Form 11, which
shall be served on the lessee.
24. [Section 4 (b)].-(1) All buildings, situate on any land
included in the lease, held by the lessee shall, upon the
determination of the lease, continue to be held by him for
the remainder of the period of the lease on the same terms
and conditions on which the building, together with the
area appurtenant thereto, was held prior to the date of
determination.
(2) Upon the expiry of the period referred to in sub-rule
(1), all buildings other than those owned by the State,
situate on any land included in the lease, held by a lessee,
shall along with the land appurtenant thereto, be deemed
to have been settled with owner thereof on the following
terms and conditions:
(a) he shall have heritable and transferable interest in the
building;
(b) he shall not be liable to ejectment;
(c) he shall have the right to use the building and the area
appurtenant thereto for any purpose whatsoever subject to
the existing rights of easement;
(d) succession shall be governed by the Personal Law;
(e) he shall pay to the Gaon Samaj rent for the site on
which the building stands equal to the amount of rent
payable therefor on the date immediately preceding the
date of determination of lease. He shall, however, not be
liable to pay any rent for the site if no rent was payable on
the said date, and
(f) if the building is abandoned or if the owner dies without
any heir entitled to succeed, the building shall escheat to
the State.
(3) On the expiry of the remainder of the period of lease
any building situate on any land included in the lease
which was owned by the State Government shall be taken
possession of by the Collector."
26. A careful perusal of the Rules framed under
G.E.T.A. Act reveals that the Rules are designed to
clarify and implement the provisions of the Act.
2025:UHC:7169-DB
They provide the necessary details and procedure
for effectively carrying out the objectives of the Act,
addressing specific aspects not fully covered in the
G.E.T.A. Act. In the said Rules, 25 different forms
are prescribed for different purposes. Without these
Rules, G.E.T.A. Act would become unworkable. In
Appendix-1 to the Rules, the period of limitation
and court fee payable for different proceedings are
also prescribed.
27. Rules are framed under an Act to provide the
detailed procedure and mechanism for
implementing the broad provisions outlined in the
Act. They essentially fill in the gaps and offer
specific guidelines on how the Act's objectives are
to be achieved. Acts often lay down general
principles and objectives. Rules are necessary to
translate these into practical actionable steps. Acts
usually provide the broad language to
accommodate various situations. Rules provide the
necessary details and clarity for specific scenario,
ensuring consistent application across different
context. Thus, Rules are framed to make the parent
Act operational. Without Rules, it is sometimes
difficult to understand the Act or to put the Act into
practice.
28. Generally, Rules made under one Act cannot be
automatically applied to another Act. Rules are
specific to the Act. They are created under and their
application is limited to the scope of that parent
2025:UHC:7169-DB
Act. Rules, Regulations and other forms of
subordinate legislation are created under the
authority of a parent Act. These Rules are designed
to implement, supplement or clarify the provisions
of the Act they are made under. They are not
intended to have a broader application, unless
explicitly stated. If a Rule attends to apply to a
different Act or extend beyond the scope of its
parent Act, it may be considered ultra vires. In
some cases, a later Act may refer to provisions of
an earlier Act, which is known as 'referential
legislation', however, even in such cases, the
provisions of the earlier Act will be applied to the
extent that they are not inconsistent with the
specific provisions of the later Act. There might be
specific instances where an Act explicitly provides
for the application of Rule from another Act, or
where the context suggests a broader application,
however, these are exceptions and require clear
legislative intent.
29. Section 6-A of G.E.T.A. Act provides that for
determination and demarcation of ceiling area and
the surplus area, provisions of Ceiling Act would be
applicable. Here G.E.T.A. Act does not refer to any
specific provision of Ceiling Act and merely provides
that the ceiling area shall be as prescribed in the
Ceiling Act. Separate Rules have been framed under
Ceiling Act to give effect to the provisions of the
said Act. Appellants contend that procedure as laid
down in the Ceiling Act and the Rules framed
2025:UHC:7169-DB
thereunder has to be applied for determination and
demarcation of ceiling area and surplus area.
Ceiling Act and G.E.T.A. Act are separate
legislations with different objectives. The scheme of
the G.E.T.A. Act and the language used therein do
not permit application of the Rules framed under
Ceiling Act to the proceedings initiated under
G.E.T.A. Act. Moreover, there are separate Rules
framed under G.E.T.A. Act, which provide detailed
procedure and mechanism for implementing the
provisions outlined in G.E.T.A. Act.
30. Learned Advocate General is, therefore, correct
in submitting that provisions contained in Ceiling
Act, 1960, would be attracted only for the purpose
of determination and demarcation of ceiling area in
respect of the land which a lessee has brought
under his personal cultivation, however, the
procedure to be followed shall be as prescribed in
the Rules, framed under G.E.T.A Act.
31. Ceiling Act, 1960 and G.E.T.A. Act, 1958 are
separate legislations enacted to achieve different
purpose. Ceiling Act sets a maximum limit on the
amount of agricultural land a person or family can
own. This limit known as 'ceiling limit' is influenced
by factors like land quality and irrigation availability.
The Act aims to re-distribute surplus land to
landless individuals, particularly those from
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Thus,
Ceiling Act is applicable to all tenure holders
2025:UHC:7169-DB
irrespective of their class/category.
32. G.E.T.A Act. 1958, as amended in 1970, on the
other hand provides for determination of leases in
respect of Government estates and fall out of such
determination is that all the rights, title and interest
of the lessee under such lease shall cease, as
though the term of the lease had then expired.
33. G.E.T.A Act provides that if the lessee has
brought whole or part of the leased land under his
personal cultivation, then he shall become
hereditary tenant of such land, or where such land
exceeds the ceiling area, then of so much of such
land as in aggregation with other land held by the
lessee in the State, makes up the ceiling area.
34. Since separate legislation fixing ceiling limit in
respect of land holdings was in place at the time of
enactment of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari
Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1970,
therefore, the Ceiling Act was referred to in Section
6-A of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition
(Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1970 and it was
provided that determination and demarcation of
ceiling area and surplus area shall be governed by
the provisions of Ceiling Act. However, there is
nothing in the G.E.T.A. Act to indicate that the Rules
framed under Ceiling Act would also be applicable
to the proceedings under G.E.T.A. Act.
2025:UHC:7169-DB
35. Thus, the contention raised by learned senior
counsel for the appellants that the procedure
prescribed under G.E.T.A. Act and Rules framed
thereunder, cannot be made applicable in the case
in hand for determination and demarcation of
ceiling area, cannot be accepted. Ceiling Act and
G.E.T.A. Act are separate legislations enacted with
different objectives, therefore, Rules framed under
one Act cannot be made applicable to proceedings
under another Act. Rules framed under Ceiling Act,
if applied to the proceedings under G.E.T.A. Act
would make G.E.T.A. Act unworkable.
36. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the direction issued by learned Single Judge to
initiate proceedings for determination of ceiling area
as per Section 6-A of G.E.T.A. Act.
37. The Special Appeal thus fails and is dismissed.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 13.08.2025
Aswal
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
NITI RAJ ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa8
5f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3,
SINGH ASWAL
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D
26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0,
cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.08.13 09:01:04 -07'00'
