Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 1287
2003(8) Supreme 726
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
K.P. Dwivedi -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3354 of 1998
Decided on 17-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D.N. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, S. Bhattacharya, Sarwa Mitter, Ms. Santosh Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents/State : S.W.A Qadri for Ashok K. Srivastava, Advocate.
Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960-Section 4A-Prescribed authority rejecting objections of appellant declared 23.84, 12/25 acres of land in two villages as surplus-Appeal by appellant was partly allowed holding that appellant had 1/10th share in lands in question, that land treated as grove was required to be excluded and plot sold on 10-12-1971 was a bona fide sale deserved to be excluded-Allowing these some of objections of appellant, case was sent back to Prescribed Authority to re-determine surplus land of appellant-Appellant filed writ-High Court rejected appellant s contentions that some land covered by canal deserved to be excluded but partly allowed writ by remanding case to prescribed authority to re-determine ceiling area by deciding nature of land involved in two categories i.e. irrigated and unirrigated -By impugned order prescribed authority ignoring the remand order limited to question of categorisation of land as irrigated and unirrigated proceeded to redetermine all controversies -Prescribed authority could not have disturbed order of Distt. Judge passed in appeal and which became final as confirmed by High Court in writ-Impugned order of prescribed authority, confirmed in appeal and by High Court was liable to be set aside-Prescribed authority to decide limited question of categorisation of land by allowing parties an opportunity to bring evidence.
Held : From the contents of the order of the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that the writ petition of the holder of the land against the judgement of the District Judge had only succeeded with an order of the remand limited to re-examination of the nature of the lands. In all other respect, the order of the District Judge was confirmed prohibiting reopening of the same. We have already mentioned above that the order of the District Judge passed in appeal dated 05.8.1977 was not challenged by the State of U.P. and therefore, that order to the extent it was in favour of the appellant, had attained finality and could not have been disturbed. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in their orders passed on 29.3.1996 and 18.3.1997 respectively, overlooked this aspect of the case of the finality of the order of the District Judge dated 05.8.1977. They misdirected themselves by assuming that the whole case was open before them for reconsideration and re-determination of the ceiling area. In the second writ petition filed by the appellant to the High Court against the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act after remand, the learned Single Judge took no care to re-examine the contents of the orders previously passed and which had attained finality to the extent indicated in those orders. The High Court by the impugned order dated 09.5.1997 cursorily examined the case and wrongly dismissed it as being without merit. As a consequence of discussion aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 29.3.1996 of the Prescribed Authority; dated 18.3.1997 of the Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Gorakhpur Division and dated 09.5.1997 of the High Court to the extent of adversely affecting the finality of the judgement dated 05.8.1977 of the District Judge in appeal are, hereby, set aside. (Paras 12 and 13)
JUDGMENT
Dharmadhikari, J.-This appeal arises out of proceedings under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. The appellant, who is holder of the lands involved, feels aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector (Supply), Gorakhpur which, it is alleged, has been wrongly confirmed by the impugned order of the High Court dated 09.5.1997.
2. The proceedings under the Act have taken a long and a rewinding course. Its brief survey is necessary to appreciate the challenge made by the appellant to the impugned orders of the Prescribed Authority and the High Court. The appellant has lands in two villages viz., Rampur and Raghapatti. Before the Prescribed Authority, the appellant claimed exclusion of certain lands transferred bona fide by him. He also sought exclusion of certain lands covered by canal constructed by the State of U.P. He also claimed exclusion of land which he described as grove land. The appellant also raised dispute about the classification of his lands by the authority as irrigated and unirrigated. His case was that some of the lands were unirrigated and cannot be treated as irrigated for working out the ceiling limit. The appellant also submitted that the lands were the joint family property and he had only 1/10th share in the same. The appellant also claimed option to surrender lands covered by the canal.
3. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 29.11.1976 rejected most of the objections raised by the appellant and declared 23.84, 12/25 acres in two villages as surplus land in terms of it being irrigated land with the appellant.
4. The appellant appealed under the Act to the Court of District Judge. His appeal was partly allowed by judgment dated 05.8.1977 holding inter alia in his favour that he has 1/10th share in the lands in question. The land treated as grove is required to be excluded. The District Judge also held that Plot No. 602 in village Raghapatti, sold on 10.12.1971 for adequate consideration, was a bona fide sale and deserved to be excluded. On the classification of land into irrigated or unirrigated the objection of the appellant with regard to certain lands in two villages viz., Rampur and Raghapatti, was rejected. The District Judge, after allowing some of the objections of the appellant as mentioned above, sent back the case to the Prescribed Authority to re-determine the surplus land of the appellant.
5. According to the appellant, the order of the District Judge passed in appeal dated 05.8.1977 has attained finality as the State did not prefer any writ petition against the same. Only appellant approached the High Court in earlier Writ Petition No. 3997 of 1977 questioning the correctness of rejection of some of his objections. The High Court in writ petition No. 3997 of 1977 by order dated 19.1.1979 rejected the appellant s contentions that some of the lands were covered by the canal and deserved to be excluded. According to the High Court, it is open to the appellant to exercise his choice and surrender such plots which according to him form part of the canal. The High Court also rejected the appellant s plea with regard to one more sale deed which the appellant wanted to be treated as a bona fide transaction. The writ petition was partly allowed by remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to allow parties to lead evidence and for deciding the nature of the lands involved in the two categories i.e. irrigated or unirrigated in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act. After taking evidence and deciding the nature of the lands of the two categories, the Prescribed Authority was directed to re-determine the ceiling area and the surplus land and thereafter allow the appellant fresh choice for surrendering certain lands and retaining the remaining. The High Court in its order observed that apart from the above direction regarding re-determination of nature of
