Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Ram Kali Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Collector Unnao And Others – Respondents
Writ C No.3000014 of 1991
Decided on : 12-09-2023
Ceiling Act - Challenge to Recall Order - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2), Section 13(A) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 13(A) of the Act, which allows for the rectification of any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The judgment highlighted the requirement for a mistake or error on the face of the record for an order to be recalled under Section 13(A) and emphasized that the prescribed authority does not have the power of review under the Act of 1960. The court also referred to previous judgments to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and concluded that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order recalling the previous order that discharged the notices under Section 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioner argued that the lands in question were previously owned by her son and had been transferred to his sisters through a will, and therefore should not be subjected to the Ceiling Act 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order recalling the previous order was illegal and arbitrary as it was not based on any mistake apparent on the face of the record, and the prescribed authority did not have the power of review under the Act of 1960.
Issues: The main issue was whether an order passed after considering detailed submissions of the parties on merits could be recalled under Section 13(A) of the Act of 1960 without any apparent mistake on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 13(A) and emphasized the requirement for a mistake or error on the face of the record for an order to be recalled. It also highlighted that the prescribed authority does not have the power of review under the Act of 1960.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Abhisht Saran, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.04.1991 passed by Additional District Magistrate/prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act whereby he has allowed the application preferred by the State for recalling of his previous order dated 16.03.1991.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present dispute was initiated on issuance of a notice under Section 10 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 on the petitioner.
4. The petitioner had filed her objections to the said notice and had stated that the lands in issue which are sought to be declared to be surplus under the Act of 1960 were in fact previously owned by her son, namely, Shreeprakash @ Munna. It was further stated that her son Shreeprakash had executed a will in favour of his sisters on 05.01.1978 which was duly registered on 27.12.1980 and the said property having been devolved on the legaties of the said will and the said land held after the said alienation would not be subjected to Ceiling Act 1960, and cannot be clubbed with the holding of the petitioner.
5. The objections submitted by the petitioner were duly considered by the Prescribed Authority and in this regard, an order was passed on 16.03.1991 where the version of the petitioner was accepted and the notices under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 were discharged.
6. A month thereafter, an application for recall of the order dated 16.03.1991 was filed by the State, stating that they were not given adequate opportunity of hearing by the Prescribed Authority and consequently in exercise of powers under Section 13 (A) of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the order dated 16.03.1991 deserves to be recalled and the matter to be re-heard on merits.
7. It is the application preferred by the State which has been allowed by means of impugned order dated 16.04.1991 which has been assailed in the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the said order has submitted that as per provisions contained in Section 13(A) of the Act of 1960, it only provides for rectification of any mistake apparent on the fact of record.
9. It is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 16.04.1991 would indicate that though the counsel for the State was not present but the matter was duly prosecuted by the Tehsildar who was present on the occasion and has led all the submissions on behalf of the State. He further submits that entire records were perused by the Prescribed Authority and all the evidences which were adduced were duly considered before passing of the said order. He also submits that in this regard, it cannot be said that there was any mistake or any error apparent on the face of record necessitating rectification as sought by the State.
10. He further submits that in fact the application filed by the State is under the garb of review which is not permissible under Section 13(a) of the Act of 1960.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jwala Prasad Singh Vs. District Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 965 of 1978 decided on 13.11.1978.
12. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that no adequate representation was made on behalf of the State before the Prescribed Authority and consequently there has been miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the relevant arguments on behalf of the State could not be advanced which would be within the meaning of mistake or apparent on the face of record for which the Prescribed Authority record its previous order and there is no infirmity with the same.
13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
14. The petitioner Ram Kali is the mother of Shri Prakash. Shri Prakash was initially given the no
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order under Section 13(A) of the Act of 1960 can only be recalled if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and the prescri....
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
The court clarified that subsequent ceiling proceedings do not annul earlier proceedings unless explicitly stated, highlighting legislative intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to conform to the legal principles and observations made by the higher courts, particularly the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High ....
The court established that once a determination of surplus land has been made and attained finality, subsequent proceedings cannot be initiated under the Ceiling Act, emphasizing the importance of fi....
The court affirmed that changes in the U.P. Ceilings Act necessitate a re-determination of surplus land in adherence to legislative amendments, disallowing re-litigation on previously settled land is....
Subordinate courts must comply with remand orders from higher authorities, and failure to do so renders subsequent orders unsustainable, especially in matters affecting legal heirs.
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
