Supreme Court of India
RAM SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 25 July 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 44 · 1996 INSC 789
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal by Special leave arises against the order of the High Court of Allahabad made on February 22, 1980 in W.P. No. 6667 of 1978. The finding, as a fact, recorded by both the Tribunals under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is that the appellant had cut out the existing trees as on January 24, 1971 and planted new trees. On that premise, the question arose; whether the trees planted by the appellant would be a grove land wit!Jin the meaning of Section 23(8) of the Act which reads as under :
p. 44, margin E
(8) "grove land" means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including (Guava, Papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before January 24 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other
pp. 44–45, margin G
purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove".
p. 45, margin A
A reading thereof clearly indicates that the Legislature has put a cut off date for existing trees as on January 24, 1971 except the Guava, Papaya, Banana or vine plants planted before that date. In other words, the Legislature has indicated that any grove existing as on that date with fully grown trees would be the grove except the excepted trees and for the purpose of the Act. By necessary implication any tree planted after that date cannot be the grove land under the Act. Though the contention of Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant that in place of fallen trees some new trees were grown, is plausible, we cannot give acceptance to the contention since the Legislature has specifically put a date of the existing trees, viz., January 24, 1971. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unwarranted.
p. 45, margin A
The appeal is dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 45, margin C