Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SUSHILA DEVI
Sushila Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Collector Sitapur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, Advocate and Sri Syed Ahmad Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.10.2002 and impugned judgment and order dated 29.4.2002, passed by opposite party No.2 in Appeal No.33/1999- 2000 Under Section- 13 of the Ceiling Act, contained at Annexure No.14 and 10 to the writ petition and impugned order dated 24.2.2000, passed by opposite party No.3, Prescribed Authority, Sitapur in Case No.3/2/3 Under Section- 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act, contained at Annexure No.8 to the writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties and directing them to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed land and excluded the disputed land from the Ceiling Act, in the interest of justice.
(iii)...
(iv)..."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the disputed land w
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
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 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 established that land transfers made after the reference date under the Ceiling Act are not valid for determining surplus land, and the burden of proof regarding the classification of land ....
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....
Appellate authorities must strictly adhere to remand order directives and procedural requirements; failure to do so results in vitiated orders regarding land surplus determinations.
The court clarified that subsequent ceiling proceedings do not annul earlier proceedings unless explicitly stated, highlighting legislative intent.
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.
The State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.
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
