1. Reopening of a decided question regarding the majority of heirs for computing surplus land under Section 13-A, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., G.B. PATTANAIK AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Devendra Nath Singh (Dead) through L. Rs. and others, Appellants
Versus
Civil Judge and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 1982, D/- 23-9-1998.
The power to rectify apparent mistakes under Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, does not permit re-examining factual findings with fresh evidence, nor does Section 38-B allow reopening final decisions reached within the Act's own proceedings.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 13-A and 38-B - Power to reopen proceedings - Rectification of apparent mistake - Res judicata - Jurisdiction - Power under Section 13-A to rectify an apparent mistake on the face of the record does not include the power to entertain fresh evidence or re-examine factual questions, such as whether the sons of a land holder were major or minor (Para 3) - Section 38-B, which provides that findings or decisions given by any ancillary forum prior to the commencement of the said section shall not operate as res judicata in a proceeding under the Act, does not apply to findings that have already reached finality within the proceedings under the Act itself (Para 3).
(B) Jurisdiction - Where an authority lacks the jurisdiction to reopen a matter, the question of waiver of such jurisdiction does not arise (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
The Prescribed Authority initially concluded that a deceased land holder had no surplus land because two sons were major and entitled to their shares in the property. Subsequently, the Prescribed Authority issued a fresh notice under Section 13-A of the Act, claiming certain land had not been accounted for. In the ensuing proceedings, the Authority reversed its earlier finding, concluding that the two sons were not major on the appointed date and were therefore not entitled to shares, resulting in the land being treated as surplus. The land holder challenged the jurisdiction of the Authority to reopen the question of majority.
Findings of Court:
The Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the question of majority of the sons in the purported exercise of power under Section 13-A.
Issues: Whether the Prescribed Authority, exercising powers under Section 13-A of the Act, can reopen a decided matter to re-adjudicate the majority or minority status of the land holder's sons, and whether Section 38-B permits the annulment of an earlier decision reached within the Act's own proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 13-A is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes on the face of the record and does not extend to re-examining factual issues through fresh evidence. Section 38-B only removes the bar of res judicata for decisions from ancillary forums and does not authorize the reopening of final decisions reached within the proceedings under the Act.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend Section 13-A does not permit reopening decided questions of majority; respondents argue that participating in proceedings constitutes a waiver of jurisdictional challenges. (Para 2 )
3. Section 13-A allows rectifying apparent mistakes on the record but not re-examining facts via fresh evidence; Section 38-B excludes res judicata for ancillary forum findings, not final decisions. (Para 3 )
4. Power to rectify apparent mistakes under Section 13-A does not extend to re-adjudicating factual findings reached with finality in the same proceeding under the Act. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside and heirs treated as major for ceiling computation. (Para 4 , 6 )
6. Does Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act allow the re-examination of factual findings through fresh evidence?
No. The power under Section 13-A is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes on the face of the record and does not include the power to entertain fresh evidence or re-examine factual questions. (Para 3 )
7. How does Section 38-B of the Act affect the principle of res judicata in ceiling proceedings?
Section 38-B provides that findings or decisions by ancillary forums prior to the section's commencement do not operate as res judicata; however, it does not apply to findings that have reached finality within the same case under the Act. (Para 3 )
8. Can a party waive a jurisdictional challenge by participating in proceedings?
No. If the authority lacks inherent jurisdiction to reopen a matter, the question of waiver of jurisdiction does not arise, regardless of whether the party participated or led evidence. (Para 3 )
Judgement
The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Prescribed Authority in exercise of his powers under Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 can reopen a matter already decided and readjudicate the question whether the two sons of the original land holder, deceased Devendra Nath Singh, namely Hamendra and Shailendra were major or minor. On a proceeding being initiated, pursuance to notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30th January, 1975 came to the conclusion that the deceased Devendra Nath Singh had no surplus land in his possession inasmuch as the two major sons Hamendra and Shailendra were entitled to their share in the property. Shortly thereafter a fresh notice was issued by the said Prescribed Authority in purported exercise of his power under Section 13-A of the Act, intimating there under that some other land has not been taken into account. In course of the subsequent proceeding which stood initiated, the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the two sons of the deceased Devendra Nath, namely, Shailendra and Hamendra were not major on the appointed date and, therefore, they would not be entitled to any share while computing the surplus land in the hands of deceased Devendra Nath Singh. the land holder contested the proceeding on several grounds including the grounds that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the question of majority of the two sons, in exercise of his power under Section 13-A of the Act. The said contention, however, was negatived by the Authorities under the Act as well as by the High Court on the ground that Section 38-B clearly indicates that no finding or decision given before the commencement of the said section can be treated as bar against the principle of res judicata and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority could annul its earlier decision on the question of majority of the two sons, Hamendra and Shailendra.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the power under Section 38-B will not enlarge the power of redetermination of surplus land conferred on the Prescribed Authority under Section 13-A of the Act and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority did not have the jurisdiction to reopen the question of the majority of the two sons. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the land holder having subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority and having lead evidence in the proceeding after the matter was reopened, is not entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the authority and, therefore, the findings arrived at by those authorities cannot be annulled at this point of time.
3. Having examined the provisions of Section 13-A and Section 38-B of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that under Section 13-A the Prescribed Authority has the power to reopen the matter within two years from the date of the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14 to rectify any apparent mistake which was there on the face of the record. That power will certainly not include the power to entertain fresh evidence and re-examine the question as to whether the two sons, namely, Hamendra and Shailendra were major or not. The power under Section 38-B merely indicates that if any finding or decision was there by any ancillary forum prior to the commencement of the said Section in respect of a matter which is governed by the Ceiling Act then such findings will not operate as res judicata in a proceeding under the Act. That would not cover the case where findings have already reached its finality in the very case under the Act. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the question of majority of the two sons in purported exercise of the power under Section 13-A. If the Authority had no jurisdiction, question
