Back
2008(1) Supreme 290
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. etc. — Appellants
versus
Roshan Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 453-455 of 2008
Decided on 16-01-2008
(2002 (4) SCC 188),(AIR 1964 SC 993) relied upon.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 – Inherent powers of Court – Scope of - In matters with which CPC does not deal with, Court will exercise its inherent power to do justice between parties which is warranted under circumstances and which necessities of the case require - If there are specific provisions of the CPC dealing with particular topic and they expressly or necessary implication exhaust scope of powers of Court or jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC - Inherent powers of Court are not to be used for benefit of a litigant who has remedy under CPC - Similar is the position vis-‘-vis other statutes - Object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC - Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law - Operative field of power being thus restricted, the same cannot be risen to inherent power - Inherent powers of Court are in addition to powers specifically conferred to it - If there are express provisions covering a particular topic, such power cannot be exercised in that regard - Section confers on the Court power of making such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice of the Court - Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when there is express provision even under which relief can be claimed by the aggrieved party - Power can only be invoked to supplement provisions of Code and not to override or evade other express provisions - Position is not different so far as the other statutes are concerned. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:-
1.Area of 17 bighas 10 biswas and 2 biswanis of land of respondent was declared as surplus after issuance of notice u\s 10(2) herein in the instant case. Opportunity was given by Prescribed authority to respondent to indicate choice of land to be retained. Possession of surplus land was taken on respondents not indicating any choice. Application u\s 151 of CPC was filed by respondent on plea that in consolidation proceedings different area was indicated and hence holding was reduced. Said claim of respondent was rejected by Prescribed authority. Appeal there against was dismissed. However writ petition was allowed.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :-
The Court held that conclusions of High Court were not only cryptic but also without indication of any basis. Contention of Appellant that long after period provided for preferring an appeal under Section 12 of the Act, application under Section 151 CPC was filed was found acceptable. Relying upon decision in case of State of W.B. and ord. vs Karan singh Binayak and ors. held that inherent powers cannot be used to reopen settled matters. Orders of High Court impugned in appeals held unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Civil Misc. Writ Petitions 17464 of 1984, 8825 of 1995 and 19050 of 1995. Challenge in the first writ petition was to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority.
3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
After issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act an area of 17 Bighas 10 Biswas and 2 Biswansis of land of the respondent-Roshan Singh was declared as surplus. Thereafter consolidation operation commenced. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Act were initiated on 28.3.1974 and the respondent-Roshan Singh was granted opportunity to file his response to the notice. The objection was filed on 25.5.1974 and by order dated 14.1.1980 the Prescribed Authority after determining the surplus gave opportunity to the respondent to indicate the choice of land to be retained. The respondent did not indicate any choice. Therefore by order dated 8.4.1982, 17 Bighas 10 Biswas and 2 Biswansis of land was declared as surplus. Thereafter, possession of the surplus land was taken. There is a provision for appeal under Section 12 of the Act. But the respondent-Roshan Singh did not prefer any appeal. On the other hand on 17.2.1984 an application titled under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short CPC) was filed. Stand taken was that in the consolidation proceedings different area was indicated and, therefore, holding was reduced. Objections were filed by the functionaries of the State on 23.3.1984 and 30.3.1984. Considering the objections the Prescribed Authority by order dated 3.4.1984 rejected the claim of the respondent-Roshan Singh. An appeal was preferred by him i.e. Revenue Appeal no.24 of 1984 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Banda, U.P. The appeal was dismissed on 21.8.1984. Civil Writ Petition no.17464 of 1984 was filed before the Allahabad High Court. Subsequently, the surplus land was distributed. These were challenged in Civil Writ Petition no.8825 of 1995 and 19050 of 1995. The first writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge with the following observations:
“Havind heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that as the reduction of area made during the consolidation operation is made for public purposes, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of said reduction. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got force and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.”
4.It is to be noted that the above quoted portion was the only basis on which the writ petition was allowed. Two orders were also allowed following the decision rendered in the first case.
5.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. Firstly, petition under Section 151 was not maintainable when statutorily an opportunity and/or forum is provided which was not availed. Further the proceedings under the Act and the Consolidation Act operate in different fields and, therefore, even if the area was different same was on the basis of the parameters under the Consolidation Act and a belated attempt to re-open concluded issues by resorting to Section 151 was clearly impermissible.
6.Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there cannot be two different areas; one under the Act and the other the Consolidation Act. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view.
7.The principles which regulate the exercise of inherent powers by a court have been highlighted in many cases. In matters with which the CPC does not deal with, the Court will exercise its inherent power to do justice be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
