Appellate authorities must strictly adhere to remand order directives and procedural requirements; failure to do so results in vitiated orders regarding land surplus determinations.

JUDGMENT

HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri S.G. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner- State and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner–State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The Court has also perused the original records, pleadings exchanged between the parties and the short notes of arguments filed on behalf of the respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the State, challenging the order dated 07.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the appellate authority set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21.03.1998, passed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

4. The facts giving rise to the present controversy, in brief, are that the original tenure holder late Shri Gaindan Lal held agricultural land measuring 13.9690 hectares in village Rampur Majhiyara, Pargana and Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi. Ceiling proceedings were initially initiated against him, however, the same were dropped as his holding did not exceed the prescribed ceiling limit. Shri Gaindan Lal expired on 21.10.1989, and thereafter the land came to be recorded in the name of his son, Vinod Kumar.

5. Subsequently, proceedings under the Ceiling Act were again initiated by issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act. Vinod Kumar filed objections on 14.11.1994. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the objections, passed an order dated 30.12.1995, declaring 4.8528 hectares of land as surplus. The said order was challenged in appeal, which resulted in a remand order dated 29.03.1997, requiring the Prescribed Authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the holdings as existing on the relevant date i.e. 8.6.1973.

6. After remand, the Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 21.03.1998. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner by order dated 07.09.1998. The State has assailed the said appellate order by filing the present writ petition.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner–State submitted that the appellate authority has committed a patent error of law in extending the benefit of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act by taking into consideration events which occurred after the relevant date of 8.6.1973. It was contended that on the relevant date the original tenure holder was alive and admittedly had a major son, and therefore, the statutory condition for grant of additional land under Section 5(3)(b) was not fulfilled. It was further urged that the impugned order is contrary to Rule 19(3) of the U.P. Ceiling Rules, 1961, as notice under Section 10(2) had been issued during the lifetime of the tenure holder, and thus the proceedings could not have been shifted to the heirs by taking into account subsequent death. It was also argued that the appellate authority exceeded the scope of the remand and re-determined issues which stood concluded.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the impugned order by contending that re-determination of land could be made only in cases where, due to passage of time, unirrigated land became irrigated or grove land lost its character. It was submitted that no spot inspection had been conducted by the Prescribed Authority, that relevant khasras of Fasli years 1378-80 had not been examined, and that the Prescribed Authority had failed to comply with the remand order dated 29.03.1997. It was also urged th