Back
1987 Supreme(SC) 1032
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Murari Mohan Dutt and M.H. Kania, JJ.
Tejpal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3654 of 1987. [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1935 of 1986].
Decided On : 1-12-1987
Subject
Land Law - Land Ceiling
Act Referred
Headnote
Re-consideration - It appears that in Civil in which brother of appellant was petitioner High Court had remanded case to prescribed authority Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act for re-consideration as to whether plot in village are irrigated or unirrigated plots - In other case that is case of appellant being Civil - Writ Petition High Court has not considered as to whether said plots are irrigated or unirrigated plots - Held, In circumstances we set aside impugned orders of High Court in Civil - Writ Petition and authorities below and remand matter to prescribed authority with a direction to consider whether plot are irrigated or unirrigated plots prescribed authority will also consider whether some of plots belonging to appellant are submerged or not prescribed authority will dispose of objections on basis of findings that may be made by it in respect of said plots - Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Special Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
3. It appears that in Civil Misc. Writ No. 809/76 in which the brother of the appellant was the petitioner, the High Court had remanded the case to the prescribed authority under 'the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act for re-consideration as to whether plot Nos.998 to 1000 in village Dalpatupr are the irrigated or unirrigated plots. In the other case, that is, the case of the appellant being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 811/76, the High Court has not considered as to whether the said plots are irrigated or unirrigated plots.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 811 of 1976 and the authorities below and remand the matter to the prescribed authority with a direction to consider whether plot Nos.998 to 1000 are irrigated or unirrigated plots. The prescribed authority will also consider whether some of the plots belonging to the appellant are submerged or not. The prescribed authority will dispose of the objections on the basis of the findings that may be made by it in respect of the said plots.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
