Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Sulabh Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
Heard Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Shri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rafiuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the persons who have been impleaded as private respondents in one of the writ petitions.
2. All the aforesaid writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment.
3. For the purposes of reference, Writ-C No.37439 of 1996 is being treated as the leading case.
4. These petitions have been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur whereby various appeals filed by the respective tenure holders as well as State of U.P. were decided.
5. The facts of the case as per the record of the writ petitions and the affidavits exchanged between the parties are to the effect that proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were held against Ram Harakh Chand and his four sons, namely, Surendra Kumar, Ambrish Kumar, Anil Ku
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 court held that valid sale deeds executed before the appointed date under the Ceiling Act must be considered, and notices issued post-death of the tenure holder are invalid.
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
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.
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court did not have valid or sufficient grounds for rejecting the revised choice indicated by the petitioner because the choice can be revised till such time his....
The appellate order allowing claims of adverse possession was quashed due to lack of evidence and presumption of collusion with the tenure holder.
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
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....
The court clarified that subsequent ceiling proceedings do not annul earlier proceedings unless explicitly stated, highlighting legislative intent.
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
