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 justice.

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 / Consolidation Authorities evidencing and confirming the transactions which establish that the ceiling authorities have erroneously proceeded to issue notices that were invalid and had also been held as such in the Judgement of the High Court dated 07.11.1969. The Impugned Orders have therefore been questioned contending that they are in teeth of the Judgment and orders that have intervened as well as suffer from perversity on account of non-consideration of relevant material evidence or ignoring the impact thereof. Other submissions oral and written have also been raised that shall be dealt with in detail hereinafter.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that one of the issues relating to the transfer of a substantial area of land by the Original Tenure Holder through registered sale deed for consideration had taken place in 1961 or even before that and the first ceiling notice that was issued to the tenure holder 21.08.1962 (Annexure SA-1, pg 12) did not include the land which had already been sold and transferred was all prior to the issuance of the ceiling notice.

5. Objections to the said notice had also been filed by the tenure holder and in between some rank outsider gave an application before the prescribed authority on 17.11.1962 informing the prescribed authority to also include the land that had been transferred by the original tenure holder who was the petitioner's late father. The Prescribed authority entertained the said application and called upon the Naib Tehsildar to prepare a fresh notice that was served on the Original Tenure Holder and which included the land which has been transferred.

6. This amended / revised Notice pursuant to the Order of Prescribed Authority dated 4.10.1963 were both challenged by the Original Tenure Holder in Civil Writ Petition No. 4772/1963 wherein further proceedings were initially stayed and the writ petition was ultimately allowed on 07.11.1969 (Annexure 1, pg 40) by the High Court.

7. Learned