Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Tandon, J.
RAM BAHADUR ALIAS LAXMI PRASAD - Appellant
Vs.
COLLECTOR AND OTHERS - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No's. 29882 of 1995 and 8473 of 1996
Decided On : 19-03-2004
Abuse of Process - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act - 10(2), 13, 14, 27(4) - The court discussed the abuse of process by the petitioner in filing successive writ petitions and obstructing the allotment of surplus land. It highlighted the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, including sections 10(2), 13, 14, and 27(4), and emphasized the petitioner's deliberate failure to exercise his choice in respect of the surplus land, leading to the justified declaration of the land as surplus.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions to obstruct the allotment of surplus land, despite the proceedings initiated against him under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as early as 1975. The court found the petitioner's actions to be an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct was highly unsatisfactory and disentitled him to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also highlighted the petitioner's deliberate failure to exercise his choice in respect of the surplus land, leading to the justified declaration of the land as surplus.
Issues: Abuse of process, deliberate failure to exercise choice in respect of surplus land, obstruction of allotment of surplus land.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's deliberate failure to exercise his choice in respect of the surplus land justified the declaration of the land as surplus. The petitioner's conduct was found to be highly unsatisfactory and disentitled him to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was required to pay exemplary cost of Rs. 40,000, to be deposited with the District Magistrate, Hamirpur, within one month.
Arun Tandon, J.
Heard Sri N.B. Nigam on behalf of the Petitioner and Sri S.K. Singh Counsel on behalf of the Respondent Nos. to 17 as well as standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. This writ petition is an example of abuse of process of the Court by a person filing successive writ petitions and obstructing the allotment of surplus land to poor persons for whose interest the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was enacted. This Court is deeply shocked with the manner in which successive writ petitions have been filed before this Court and interim orders obtained time and again.
3. The relevant facts for decision of the writ petition are that proceedings u/s 10 (2) were initiated against the Petitioner under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as early as in the year 1975.
4. The Petitioner filed objections. The objections were considered and the prescribed authority by means of the order dated 15th June, 1976, declared 22.5 acres as surplus in terms of irrigated land. Against the said order of the prescribed authority, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hamirpur, being Appeal No. 523 of 1976.
5. On 11th November, 1976, the appeal was allowed and the appellate authority reduced the area of surplus land to 11.2 acres in terms of irrigated land. Against the said order the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1025 of 1977 (First writ petition), which was allowed by this Court on 4th September, 1978 and the matter was remanded to the District Judge for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the Petitioner.
6. On remand the District Judge by means of the order dated 16th December, 1979, allowed the appeal and reduced the area of the surplus land to 7.82 acres. Despite the aforesaid order having been passed, the Petitioner does not claim to have exercised any choice in respect of the land to be taken as surplus.
7. The prescribed authority, subsequent to order dated 16th December, 1979, passed an order on 11th March, 1980 directing that chak No. 81, which belonged to Petitioner be declared surplus.
8. On an application being filed by the Petitioner, the order dated 11th March, 1980 was recalled by the prescribed authority on the ground that the same was an ex parte order. The prescribed authority, after recalling the order dated 11th March, 1980, passed an order on 26th February, 1981 and required the Lekhpal to submit his comment with regard to choice submitted by the Petitioner. From the said order, which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is apparently clear that the Petitioner had already exercised his choice inasmuch as the order reads as follows:
9. The Petitioner had exercised his choice on 20th March, 1980. It is, thus, clear that the Petitioner had exercised the choice prior to the passing of the order dated 26th February, 1981.
10. The prescribed authority thereafter by means of the order dated 18.4.1981, after obtaining the report from the Tehsildar, rejected the choice exercised by the Petitioner and directed that chak No. 81, total area 7.82 acres irrigated, be declared as surplus.
11. Against the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority, Petitioner (as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition) had filed Appeal No. 12 of 1981. It is further alleged in the said paragraph that the said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 24.8.1981. However, liberty was given to the Petitioner to exercise fresh choice of plot other than the choice which has been earlier exercised by the Petitioner by means of application dated 20.3.1980.
12. Against the said order of the District Judge, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 14117 of 1981 (second writ petition) and again succeeded in obtaining an ex parte order. This writ petition has been dismissed by this Court on 19th October, 1984. However, the order passed by this Court has not been brought on record. Similarly the order dated 24.8.1981 passed by the District Judge in appeal
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
