SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Irshad Ali, J.
State of U.P. Thru Collector Shrawasti - Petitioner
Versus
Anwar Alam and others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 3000108 of 2002
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.S.C.
For the Respondent: Dipak Seth, A.r. Khan, Jagdish Prasad Maurya, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Ratnesh Chandra

The appellate authority’s reliance on will deeds for land titling, based on proper evidence and administrative remand, was upheld, confirming that past rulings subject to reconsideration do not apply res judicata.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 5(6) and 5(8) - Writ petition for quashing an appellate order concerning land ownership - Appellate authority upheld the exclusion of land from surplus area based on examined will deeds and mutations. The doctrine of res judicata was found inapplicable as the prior decision was set aside and reconsidered. No substantial injury to the petitioner was established. Findings were backed by cogent reasoning; thus, interference in writ jurisdiction was not justified. (Paras 25, 26, 29-31)

(B) Administrative delay in filing the writ petition, without proof of injury, weakens the claim for relief under Article 226. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an appellate order that set aside the Prescribed Authority's decision, which had included a specific plot in surplus land calculations. The original tenure holder contested ownership based on alleged will deeds.

Findings of Court:
The appellate authority's order was based on a proper assessment of the material, finding no error or jurisdictional issue in the decision-making process regarding the land's title.

Issues: The court examined the applicability of res judicata in light of a remanded case and the reliance on will deeds during the appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that findings based on the examined will deeds were within the authority of the appellate court and reinforced by revenue and mutation records, affirming that the writ jurisdiction does not permit reevaluation of evidence absent illegality or perversion.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background on the dispute over land holdings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 10)
2. process of filing and subsequent legal challenges. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments against the legitimacy of the will deed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. counterarguments from the respondents regarding the will deed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. court's reasoned analysis of authority decisions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. decision to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri Arya Shresth Tiwari, learned Additional CSC for the petitioner - State and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the intervenor.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by respondent No.6 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition and to restore the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority contained as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition.

3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-99 passed by opp. party no.6 in appeal No.57; Pateshwar Verma & others- Versus - State of U.P and others, including No.508/5-350 hectares (13- 173 acres) irrigated land from the surplus land declared by the prescribed authority vide order dated 27-03-1999. Certified Copy of the order dated 14-10-99 passed by opp. party no.6, is annexed as Annexure No.1 and the true copy of the order dated 27-03-1999 passed by Prescribed Authority is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, respectively.

4. The notices under section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Ceiling Act) was issued to original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh, predecessor-in- interest of opp. party no.4 and 5 and objection was filed by the original tenure holder. True copy of the objection filed by the original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh dated 30/31-8-94 is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.

5. The original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh had taken specific plea in his objection dated 30/31-8-91 to the effect that plot no.508/5-350 hectares (13-173 acres) had wrongly been clubbed with the holding of the objector as the said plot belong to Pradeep Singh son of Jagdeep Singh.

6. Learned Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 31-03-1994 rejected the objection of the original tenure holder namely Bhagwan Singh and held that plot no.508 has rightly been included in the holding of Shri Bhagwan Singh. True copy of the order dated 31-03-1994 passed by Prescribed Authority is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.

7. It is relevant to point out that the specific issue regarding title of Bhagwan Singh over plot no.508 situate in village Bargadaha has become final as this issue was not challenged at any forum.

8. Opposite party no.1 to 3 preferred appeal No. 115 under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act Anwar Alam and others Versus State of U.P. and learned opp. party no.6 by means of order dated 29-01-1997 set aside the order of Prescribed Authority dated 31-10-1994 and remanded the case for decision afresh. True copy of the order dated 31-10-1991 is annexed as Annexure No.5 and true copy of the order passed by Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 29-01-1997 is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

9. Opposite party no.1 to 3 filed writ petition No.79 of 1995 Anwar alam & others-Versus- Addl. Commissioner and others and the Hon'ble High Court by means of order dated 21-06-1995 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellate court to pass appropriate order in the appeal. True copy of the order dated 21-06-1995 is annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.

10. The final order was passed by the appellate court on 29-01-1997 as indicated above, remanding the case for decision afresh. The Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 27-03-1999 rejecte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top