RANI PADMA DEVI vs STATE - 2009 Supreme(UK) 465

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(UK) 465

2010 (1) UAD 12
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4774 of 2001
With Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4769 of 2001 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2908 of 2001
SMT. RANI PADMA DEVI & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
STATE & ORS. – Respondents
In Writ Petition (M/S) No.4774 of 2001
In Writ Petition (M/S) No.4769 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2908 of 2001
Decided on : 08.09.2009

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.B. Paul, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder
For the Respdts. Nos. 11 to 26 :Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Art. 227 — Writ Jurisdiction — Scope of — Limited — Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction — Orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned — Such power, however, is not exercised to correct a mistake of fact and law — An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari — If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. (Para 16)
       (B) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Proviso (b) to Sec. 5(6) — Benefit of — Transfers of land made through sale deeds — Conditions to be satisfied for getting benefit, stated — The pressing necessity for transfer is not a necessary ingredient of good faith — And even if there is no pressing necessity — But the transfer is effected in the course of prudent management of affairs — Such transfer will also qualify for the protection, afforded by proviso (b) to Sec. 5(6) of the Act. (Para 19)
       (C) Practice and Procedure — Learned appellate court, dismissed some of the appeals, upholding the orders of the learned Prescribed Authority, but, in respect of some other appeals, involving identical issues decided on same evidence, remanded the matter back to the learned Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh after setting aside the impugned order — Since, the learned appellate court had remanded some of the appeals, involving identical issues, to the learned Prescribed Authority, in the peculiar circumstances — The ends of justice would be served if the impugned order of the learned appellate court, dismissing the said appeals, be set aside — And the matter be remanded to the learned Prescribed Authority.
        (Paras 26 and 27)
       ¼v½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 227 & fjV ds dk;Z{ks= dk foLrkj lhfer gS & vuqPNsn 227 ds vUrxZr i;Zos{kdh; dk;Z{ks= dk iz;ksx v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dks muds dk;Z{ks= dh lhek esa j[kuk gS & nhokuh vkSj QkStnkjh nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa dks cgqr gh viokn ds :i esa ml le; tk¡pk&ij[kk tkrk gS tc Li"Vr;k U;k; dh gR;k gqbZ gks & ,slk vf/kdkj rF; vkSj dkuwu dh =qfV dks 'kq) djus gsrq iz;qDr ugha fd;k tkrk & fdlh yEcs vkSj isphnk rdZ ds vk/kkj ij LFkkfir =qfV vFkok rdks± dh yEch pkSM+h izfd;k ds dkj.k gqbZ =qfV dks mRizs"k.k ys[k (Writ of certiorari) }kjk 'kq) ugha djkbZ tk ldrh & ;fn fdlh fcUnq ij nks jk; gksus dh laHkkouk gks rks fdlh ,d ij ;k nwljs ij fn;k x;k fu.kZ; izR;{k =qfV ugha dgh tk ldrhA ¼izLrj 16½
       ¼c½ mRrj izns'k bEiksft'ku vkQ lhfyax vku yS.M gksfYMaXl ,DV 1960] /kkjk 5¼6½ ds viokn (b) dk ykHk & cSukes ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe dk gLrkUrj.k gqvk & ykHk ikus ds okLrs 'krs± ntZ dh xbZ Fkh & Hkwfe gLrkUrj.k esa ln~Hkkouk dk visf{kr rRo dksbZ vko';drk 'krZ ugha gksrk vkSj bl ij Hkh fdlh 'krZ dh vko';drk ugha gksrh ijUrq gLrkUrj.k okafNr izfd;k ds rgr izHkkoh gks tkrk gS & ,slk gLrkUrj.k Hkh /kkjk 5¼6½ ds viokn (b) ds vUrxZr lqj{kk dk ykHk ikus gsrq ik=rk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA
        ¼izLrj 19½
       ¼l½ i)fr ,oa izfd;k & ekU; vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ekU; fu/kkZfjr vf/kdkjh ds vkns'kksa dh iqf"V djrs gq, dqN vihyksa dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k ftuesa ,d ls lk{; ds vk/kkj ij r;'kqnk ekeyksa dk gokyk fn;k x;k vkSj ekeys dks u;s fljs ls lqudj r; djus gsrq fu/kkZfjr vf/kdkjh dks okfil Hkst fn;k x;k vkSj iz'uxr vkns'k dks jn~n dj fn;k x;k & ih MCY;w fd ekU; vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ,d lk ekeyk gksus ij okfil Hkst fn;k x;k Fkk & ;fn ekU; vihyh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vihyksa dks fujLr djus okyk jn~n dj fn;k tk, rks U;k; dk mn~ns'; iw.kZ gks tk,xk vkSj ekeyk ekU; fu/kkZfjr vf/kdkjh dks fQj ls lquokbZ gsrq Hkst fn;k tk,A ¼izLrj 26] 27½

JUDGMENT

Since the controversy involved in all the three writ petitioners is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petitions, according to the petitioners, are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act) was given by the Prescribed Authority to the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Rani Padma Devi (since deceased) proposing to declare 523.04 acres of land as surplus out of the entire holding of the said petitioner assumed to be 619.83 acres. The petitioner No. 1 filed objection on 27.12.1975 alleging therein that the notice given to her is against law and the same is ultra vires. It was also alleged that the present notice is barred by the principle of res judicata because earlier also proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Act, which attained finality, therefore, for the same land notice ought not to have been issued again under the U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973. It was also alleged that there is no surplus land in possession of the petitioner No. 1 and that land to the tune of 200-54 hectares has wrongly been shown as irrigated, while the same is un-irrigated. No regular source of irrigation was available. It was also contended that the land in possession of Adhivasi has wrongly been clubbed with the land of the petitioner no. 1. It was also alleged that the tenure holder sold certain land on different dates through registered sale deeds on fair market rate. The land was sold on account of repayment of loan and purchase of agriculture implement. The tenure holder also gave 15-50 acres of land to her son Sri Karan Chandra Raj Singh. According to the petitioners, in respect of the land in question, notice under Section 10(2) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the said Act was also issued to large number of other persons and they also filed objections on various grounds in support of their case. The objectors based their claims on lease deed executed by the petitioner no. 1, the sale deed executed by the petitioner no. 1, the gift deed executed by the petitioner no.1 and claim based on Adhivasi right/adverse possession. Petitioner no. 1 executed lease deed in respect of 12.50 acres each in favour of Chandra Bhan Singh and Subedar Virendra Singh on 28.7.1971 and 30.7.1971 respectively besides Sri Mukhtar Ahmad in respect of 12.01 acres of land on 30.7.1971. Petitioner no. 1 also executed lease deed in favour of Sri Sarosh Gandhi, son of Sri P. Gandhi on 28.7.1971 in respect of 7.5 acres of land, Sri Ram Singh on 30.7.1971 in respect of 11.39 acres, Rajendra Singh on 30.7.1971 in respect of 12.44 acres of land, Sheru Ram, Kesho Ram and Om Prakash on 15.7.1971 in respect of 5 acres of land. It is alleged that these persons were in actual physical possession of the land even before execution of lease deed.

3. In Writ Petition 4774 of 2001 (M/S) the controversy is with regard to the validity of sale deeds executed by petitioner no. 1. In paragraph no. 4A of the petition, the names of the persons in whose favour sale deeds were executed on 25.1.1972 as well as on some other dates and the area of the land have been mentioned. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 intended to take action against the persons who had been in possession of the specific portion of land, but they expressed their willingness to purchase the said land in their possession. Hence sale deeds were executed by the petitioner no. 1 through her registered power of attorney holder Sri Karan Chand Raj Singh in good faith and for adequate sale consideration and the purchasers are alleged to be continuing in actual physical possession and on the basis of the sale deeds their names have also been mutated in the revenue records.

4. Along with the petitioner no. 1, the persons to whom the part of land had been transferred were also issued notic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(UK) 465

Cases Referred (4)