Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA
Rajeshwar Pratap Sahi – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Gorakhpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Padia, J.
1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the State-respondents and the counsel for the applicant who moved an application for impleadment.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner as a result of proceedings under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 whereby Land treated to be the holding of the petitioner has been declared surplus under the impugned orders passed by the prescribed authority dated 19.07.1993 (Annexure 16, pg 191) and 31.03.1995 (Annexure 13, pg 128) as well as the impugned appellate order dated14.10.2003 (Annexure 15, pg 172).
3. The challenge raised is broadly on the ground that the impugned orders overlook the impact of the earlier judgments of the High Court dated 07.11.1969 (Annexure 1, pg 40) and 21.08.1997 (Annexure 14, pg 166) as well as relevant and material evidence which proves the fact of a substantial area of the land having been transferred much prior to the cut- off date of 24.01.1971 that were bonafide transactions as well as the orders passed by the Revenue / Consolidat
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.
The court clarified that subsequent ceiling proceedings do not annul earlier proceedings unless explicitly stated, highlighting legislative intent.
Authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling Act must prove surplus claims with adequate evidence; failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and misclassification of land holdings rendered th....
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....
An order declaring land surplus issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and violates principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing.
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
