The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the Prescribed Authority's power under Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the finality of decisions made by higher courts.

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.

Present writ petition has been filed by the State feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31st of January, 1981 passed by the Appellate Authority in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short referred as an Act) as well as the order dated 28th of February, 1979 passed by Prescribed Authority, copies of which have been filed as Annexure Nos. 5 and 4 to the writ petition.

2. The short matrix of the case is that one Kunwar Bharat Singh was having two sons namely Arun Kumar Singh and Sri Ragunandan Singh. Arun Kumar Singh was the major son having 2 hectares of land in his own name. Sri Raghunandan Singh was alleged to be minor. By the order dated 30th of October, 1976, Sri Raghunandan Singh was declared major and his holding of two hectares of land was excluded from ceiling area.

3. According to the arguments advanced on behalf of State since both the sons were having more than two acres of land and they are the tenure-holders, Sri Bharat Singh shall be entitled to get 18. 038 acres of land with excluding the benefit of 2 hectares of land.

4. In pursuance to the notice issued under Section 10 of the Act, earlier the Preseribed Authority had decided the controversy by the judgment and order dated 30th of October, 1976, copy of the which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition declaring 41. 023 acres of land as surplus land. Feeling aggrieved, the State as well as private respondents have filed two appeals under Section 13 of the Act. The appellate Court vide order dated 13th of July, 1977 has allowed the appeal of private respondents partly by reducing the surplus land to 4. 295 acres. However, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed. Copy of the judgment and order 13th of July, 1977 passed by the Appellate Court has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The judgment and order was not impugned by the State in the higher Forum i. e. by preferring a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, hence it attains finality.

5. However, at later stage, the State has moved an application dated 14th of July, 1978 before the Prescribed Authority purported to have been filed under Section 13-A the Act raising objection against reduction of surplus land and the finding given by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court relating to granting of benefit to two sons of Kunwar Bharat Singh. The private respondent has filed an objection dated 25th of July, 1978. After providing the opportunity of having to the parties, learned Prescribed Authority had rejected the application by the impugned order dated 28th of February, 1979. Copy of the order dated 28th February, 1979 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.

6. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 28th of February, 1979, an appeal was preferred under Section 13 of the Act before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 31st of January, 1981. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority while dismissing the application/appeal had recorded finding that application under Section 13-A of the Act was not maintainable on account of the fact that it shall amount to reopen the controversy which has already attained finality in view of the Appellate Courts order dated 13th of July, 1977 (Annexure No. 2 ).

7. Miss. Pratima Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel while assailing the impugned order submits that the Prescribed Authority was very well empowered to entertain the application under Section 13-A of the Act and set aside the earlier finding as the error is apparent at the face of the record. The further submission of learned Standing Counsel is that opposite party No. 1 was not entitled for the benefit of exemption for the land acquired by his sons namely Raghunandan Singh and Sri Arun Kumar Singh. Very vehemently, it has been argued by the Standing, Counsel that the record

Click Here to Read the rest of this document