Masud Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1984 DIGILAW 832 (ALL)

ORDER B.D. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated July 18, 1980 passed under S. 21(1) and the order of the appellate authority dated 3rd February, 1982 passed -under S. 21(3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. which the tenure-holder voluntarily delivers 1960. 2. Subsequent to issue of notice under S. 10(2) of the Act and the decision of the objections raised on the same the Prescribed Authority made determination of the surplus land on 26th November, 1974. The tenure holder took the matter to appeal which was decided on 10th November, 1975. The surplus land determined to lie with the tenure-holder was 15.65 acres only. Proceedings were taken thereafter for payment of compensation. The draft assessment roll was prepared and the notice issued. To this the tenure-holder filed objections. The objections were considered by the Prescribed Authority and the order passed thereon is dated 18th July, 1980. It was held that the petitioner shall be entitled to a sung of Rs. 11032.59 by way of compensation. As provided under S. 21( 2) of the Act the tenure-holder filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed on 3rd February. 1982 since before the appellate authority it was conceded from the side of the appellant that the compensation payable had to be calculated in accordance with the Schedule of the Act and the formula laid thereunder. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has not been proper calculation made of the damages payable by him for use and occupation over the land ultimately declared as surplus It is urged in this connection that the provision contained under S. 16 of the Act is had since it does not give any guidelines as to how the damages are to he arrived at and that the same has been left over instead to he laid down by the Rules whereas in S. 17. there is provisions made by incorporating the schedule as to the manner in which the compensation payable to the tenure-holder on account of surplus land acquired from him is to be determined. In order to resolve this controversy it brief reference to the scheme under the Act in this respect is necessary. 4. there is provisions made by incorporating the schedule as to the manner in which the compensation payable to the tenure-holder on account of surplus land acquired from him is to be determined. In order to resolve this controversy it brief reference to the scheme under the Act in this respect is necessary. 4. Section 16 of the Act lays down that where the tenure-holder held any land on or after June 8, 1973 when the U.P. Act XVIII of 1973 came into force in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, he shall he liable to pay the State Government for the period commencing from July 1, 1973 until the date on which the Collector takes possession of such surplus land under S. 14 or the date on possession to the Collector whichever is earlier, the compensation for use and occupation to be calculated in the mode prescribed. Rule 18 requires the Collector to inform the Prescribed Authority concerned about the date of taking over possession over the surplus land. Rule 18-A lays down the mode in which the damages for use and occupation are to be calculated by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority is required under Rule 18-B to prepare a statement in this respect in C. L H. Form 49. A copy of this Form is served upon the tenure holder concerned. He is given the right to raise objection, if any, against the same and the Prescribed Authority is under duty to dispose of the objections upon merit. Rule 24 requires the Prescribed Authority to draw C. L H. Form II with the assistance, inter alia, of C. L H. Form 12. In C L H. Form 12 there is a reference to the amount of damages for use and occupation required to be paid by the tenure-holder as specified in C. L H. Form 49. In other words thus the amount of damages for use and occupation calculated against the tenure holder is taken over the C. L H. Form 12 and subsequent to the objections against the same, if any, being disposed of by the Prescribed Authority there is the right of tenure-holder to take the matter in appeal under S. 21(2) of the Act. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions contained in S. 16 of the Act suffer from excessive delegation since there are no guidelines laid therein with regard to the mode of calculation of the damages for use and occupation payable by the tenure-holder. In these proceedings, however, the petitioner does not appear to have challenged the amount of damages for use and occupation payable by him to the State Government. Nothing of the sort is indicated from the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18th July, 1980 or of the Appellate Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority recites on the other hand that it was conceded from the side of the petitioner that the amount of compensation payable to him had been calculated keeping in mind the provisions contained in the Schedule tithe Act and, therefore, it was not denoted that this suffers from any legal infirmity. In the absence of any foundation laid in support of the contention which is now sought to he set up, it does not appear that it remains open to the petitioner to agitate this for the first time at this stage. 6. This apart, the mode of calculation of damages for use and occupation is essentially matter of detail The State Legislature is not required to go into minute details in respect thereof and this is not such a matter which could not be left over to be governed by the rules framed by the State Government. There is uniformity preserved inasmuch as the required provisions have been incorporated in the form of Rule 18-A and they specify the basis on which the calculation for damages for use and occupation has to be made. The argument that since S. 17 refers to the Schedule contained in the Act itself for payment of compensation to the tenure- holder upon taking over of his surplus land, there must have similar provision made in the Act itself for calculation of the damages for use and occupation payable by the tenure holder does not appeal to reason. The provision contained in S. 16 read with Rule 18- A cannot be said to be rendered invalid merely on account of the fact that for payment of compensation to the tenure holder for the acquisition of his surplus land there is a formula incorporated in the Act itself. The provision contained in S. 16 read with Rule 18- A cannot be said to be rendered invalid merely on account of the fact that for payment of compensation to the tenure holder for the acquisition of his surplus land there is a formula incorporated in the Act itself. The mode for determination of damages for use and occupation could well be left over to the State Government even if there is provision in the Act itself in so far as the compensation payable to the tenure-holder is to be arrived at. 7. Learned counsel contends also that there was no basis to provide under S. 16 that the damages payable shall be calculated with effect from July 1, 1973. As will appear from S. 5(1) of the Act the determination of the surplus lard in excess of the ceiling limit is required to he made with reference to June 8, 1973. There is nothing unreasonable, therefore, in the context of this provision in providing that the damages payable by the tenure holder 'for use and occupation shall he calculated with effect from July 1, 1973. It is true that the determination of the surplus land takes time and it can take place only subsequent to the notification under S. 9 being issued and the rest of the procedure being followed but then it cannot he overlooked that once the determination is made it dates back to the relevant date, namely, 8th June, 197. tinder the law, therefore. it is to he deemed by legal fiction that as from the said date the possession of the tenure-holder over the surplus land is unauthorised and, therefore, he is rendered liable to pay damages for use and occupation on that account. 8. For the petitioner, the learned counsel then also urged that there is no nexus as between the Cls (b) and (c) of Rule 18-A. Rule 18-A reads as under: "18A. The amount of damages for use and occupation referred to in Rule 18 shall, be determined in accordance with the following principles : (a) Except as provided in CL (d) damages shall be ascertained in respect of each crop (Kharif and Rabi) separately. (b) For the first five crops commencing from the Kharif of 1381 Fasli, damages for each crop shall he equal to the annual land revenue calculated at sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (b) For the first five crops commencing from the Kharif of 1381 Fasli, damages for each crop shall he equal to the annual land revenue calculated at sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (c) For (he remaining crops commencing from Rabi of 1383 Fasli damages for each crop shall be equal to 614 times of the annual land revenue calculated at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (d) In respect of a grove-land damages for each year shall be equal to five times of the annual land revenue calculated at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land concerned. (e) Damages shall not exceed the amount payable to the tenure-holder concerned under Chapter Ill of the Act if the possession of the land in respect whereof such amount is payable was taken under S. 141 before October 10, 1975. (f) The aggregate damages in respect of the crops grown during the first five crops referred to in Cl. I h) shall not exceed the amount payable to the tenure- holder concerned under Chap. III of the Act." 9. From the above it may not be overlooked that there is ceiling put against the damages award able under Rule 18-A. This Is manifest from CL (I) which has to be read with clause (h). The same is true of Cl. (e) read with Cls (b) and (I). The significant fact is that ceiling is laid with reference to Chapter III of the Act (which includes S. 17) and thus there is ample guideline provided by S. 17 read with the Schedule to the Act. This also runs counter to the argument that S. 16 is unguided or that there is disparity between', Sections 16 and 17. The settled principle is that in calculating mesne profits the court has to consider the pecuniary benefit which the person in wrongful possession did or might have derived from the use and occupation of the land vide, AIR 1930 PC 82 : AIR 1929 PC 300 . It is difficult to be mathematically precise in these matters. Certain amount of speculation is bound to creep into under the general law. Instead of leaving the determination entirely to the discretion of the authorities the legislature considered it advisable that there be rules formulated which ensure uniformity and are safeguard against arbitrariness. It is difficult to be mathematically precise in these matters. Certain amount of speculation is bound to creep into under the general law. Instead of leaving the determination entirely to the discretion of the authorities the legislature considered it advisable that there be rules formulated which ensure uniformity and are safeguard against arbitrariness. Rule 18-A is, in my view, fully within the purview of the rule making power contained in S. 44(2)(e) read with S. 16 of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and -purpose of the statute, the Court should not concern with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 ( AIR 1984 SC 1543 )). The essential principles including with respect to the period and the land involved as also the liability being contained in S. 16, there is little substance in contending that Rule 18-A which merely implements this provision and is a matter of detailed calculation suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. 10. The petition consequently is devoid of merit and is dismissed There will be no order as to costs.