1996 INSC 0979
                                                      Ram Singh

                                                           Vs

                                              State of U.P. and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1765 of 1982

                                      (K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      25.07.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High Court of Allahabad made on 22-
2-1980 in WP 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 24-1-1971 and planted new trees. On that premise, the question arose : whether the trees
planted by the appellant would be a groveland within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Act which
reads as under :

                  "2.(8) 'groveland' means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not
                  including (guava, papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before 24-1-1971,
                  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 purpose, and
                  the trees on such land constitute a grove."

2. A reading thereof clearly indicates that the legislature has put a cut-off date for existing trees as
on 24-1-1971 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 groveland under the Act. Though the
contention of Shri Pramod Swarup, the 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., 24-1-1971. Under these
circumstances, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unwarranted.

3. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.