Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. P. Singh, J.
STATE OF U. P. - Appellant
Versus
NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 7830 Of 1983
Decided On : 04/04/2003
Imposition of Ceiling - Land Holdings - U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 10(2), Section 13(a), Section 5, Section 6 - The court discussed the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, particularly Section 5 and Section 6, and their applicability to the land held by the respondent. The court emphasized the definition of 'tenure holder' and 'holding' under the Act, and the exemption of land used for industrial purposes with a subsisting declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an appellate order declaring 362.26 acres of land as surplus under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The court discussed the history of the case, including multiple rounds of litigation and appeals, and the acquisition of land for an industrial purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the Act did not apply to the land held by the respondent No. 1, as it had lost its character of agricultural land after acquisition and was being used for industrial purposes.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 to the land held by the respondent, and whether the land qualified as surplus under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act did not apply to the land held by the respondent No. 1, as it had lost its character of agricultural land after acquisition and was being used for industrial purposes. The court also emphasized the definitions of 'tenure holder' and 'holding' under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) A notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was served upon the contesting respondents wherein it was proposed to declare 6. 39 acres of land as surplus. The respondent No. 1 filed its objection which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the notice was affirmed by its order dated 28. 7. 1977. On appeal preferred by respondent No. 1, the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, allowed the same vide its order dated 10th of May, 1978. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid appellate order. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 9th November, 1978. A special leave petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Apex Court against the order of this Court which was allowed by an order dated 26. 11. 1996 and the matter was remanded to this Court for decision afresh on merits. While the matter remained pending before the superior courts, an application under Section 13 (a) of the Act read with Section 151, C. P. C. along with an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act was filed by the petitioner before the prescribed authority to the effect that the respondent No. 1 in fact possessed 362. 26 acres of surplus land which by mistake could not be included in the earlier notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and thus the notice should be amended and simultaneously the order dated 28. 7. 1977 passed by the prescribed authority be also modified. The prescribed authority in spite of the objection filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 allowed the said application by its order dated 18th April, 1980 and declared 362. 26 acres of land as surplus. This resulted in a second round of litigation and an appeal was filed against the aforesaid order before the District Judge, Varanasi. The appellate authority vide its order dated 17th February. 1983, quashed the order of the prescribed authority dated 18. 4. 1980. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7830 of 1983 which was dismissed by this Court on 11th July, 1983. This dismissal gave rise to another special leave petition before the Supreme court which was allowed by an order dated 23. 1. 1995 and the matter was again remanded back to this Court for decision afresh.
( 3 ) BOTH these writ petitions are before this Court. Substantially, the facts and arguments in both these cases are identical. Thus, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in both the petitions after serving a copy to the petitioner on 31. 10. 2000. On 10th January, 2003, three weeks and no more time was granted to file rejoinder-affidavit. However, it was not filed. Again on 19th February, 2003, last opportunity was granted to file rejoinder-affidavit but the same has not been filed. Today, the standing counsel made an oral prayer for grant of further time to file rejoinder-affidavit. There is no reason why the matter should be adjourned when stop orders were passed on two occasions and no rejoinder-affidavit was filed. No reason is forthcoming from the side of the petitioner as to why the rejoinder-affidavit could not be filed. Thus, the prayer was rejected and the writ petition was heard on merits.
( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petitions, an impleadment application was filed on behalf of o. C. L. India Ltd. After serving a copy of the same on the standing counsel on 19th July, 1999. No objections to the said impleadment application was filed. The amendment application has been filed on the ground that now O. C. L. India Ltd. has taken over the factory and the premises of respondent No. 1 after obtaining due permission from the relevant authorities. This Court by an order dated 3rd February, 2000, had directed that O. C. L. India would be able to advance argument as
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
