Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Shravan Kumar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2608 of 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 11(1) and Section 11(2) - Writ petition challenging order declaring land surplus - Petitioners purchased land in 2006-07 and claimed possession - No show cause notice issued under Section 10(2) - Court held that petitioners should first apply under Section 11(2) before seeking writ relief. (Paras 2-6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the order declaring their purchased land surplus under the Act, claiming they were in possession since 2006-07 and had not received a show cause notice.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing petitioners to apply under Section 11(2) within 30 days, with the authority required to entertain the application.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to challenge the surplus declaration without first applying under Section 11(2).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the proper course for the petitioners was to seek relief through the prescribed application process under Section 11(2) of the Act before resorting to writ jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, with liberty granted to petitioners to apply under Section 11(2).
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 2-Prescribed Authority/Collector, District Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 51/02/2023-24 State of Uttarakhand Vs. Krishna Bihari Agarwal and Others, whereby, the land of the petitioners purchased by them through sale deed from one of the respondents to the proceedings-Jagmandar Das Gupta, way back in the year 2006-07, was declared surplus.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased the aforesaid land which is in the share of Jagmandar Das Gupta by a registered sale deed in 2006-07 and they are in possession and cultivation of the said land since then. The proceeding under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act, 1960’) was initiated and the land was determined surplus under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1960.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have never been issued show cause notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1960, while passing the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel made a preliminary objection in the matter and submits that the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1960 can be set aside on showing sufficient cause by any of the applicants by making an application within 30 days from the date of order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1960 and instead of straightway coming to the writ jurisdiction, the petitioner could have moved such an application to the Prescribed Authority/Collector under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of and the petitioners are given liberty to move such an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 to the respondent No. 2-Prescribed Authority/Collector, District Udham Singh Nagar, within a prescribed period under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 i.e. 30 days. If such an application is moved by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 shall entertain that application, as per Law.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
The court ruled that petitioners must first apply under Section 11(2) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 before seeking writ relief against the surplus declaration.
The court reaffirmed that once a matter has been adjudicated and reached finality, further litigation on the same issue is barred by res judicata.
appellate Authority found that earlier notice issued to father of the petitioners in which determination took place is different than the notice which was subsequently issued to his sons Avadhram and....
Re-initiation of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 can only occur under specific circumstances as stated in the Act.
The redetermination of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act must occur within two years of the initial declaration, or it is jurisdictionally invalid.
The legal heirs of a recorded tenure holder are entitled to contest the determination of surplus land, and compliance with notice requirements is essential for the validity of proceedings.
The fact that a tenure holder is not recorded as such in the revenue records is not relevant for determining whether he is entitled to file an objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1) ....
The court emphasized the importance of establishing the irrigation status of land and the applicability of definitions under the Ceiling Act in determining surplus land.
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
