Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 203

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Dinesh Verma And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Collector Lucknow And Anr. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 3000053 of 2005 at Lucknow

Advocates:
Petitioner: Mohd. Arif Khan and Mohammad Aslam Khan
Respondent: C.S.C.

Fresh proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot be initiated after prior determinations have attained finality, respecting the principle of res judicata.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2) - Petitioners challenged the validity of a notice issued under the Ceiling Act, claiming that fresh proceedings could not be initiated after prior determinations had attained finality - The court emphasized that the initiation of fresh proceedings after the two-year period specified in Section 31(3) of the Amendment Act is impermissible. (Paras 2, 13, 35)

(B) Res Judicata - The court reiterated that findings from previous proceedings cannot be ignored unless justified by law, particularly in the context of ceiling proceedings where social justice is a priority. (Paras 25, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a notice issued under the Ceiling Act concerning land holdings previously determined as surplus. Their father had contested earlier orders, which were upheld by the courts, establishing that the land in question had been transferred and should not be included in surplus calculations. (Paras 3-9)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the notice issued under Section 10(2) was invalid as it was initiated beyond the permissible period and disregarded prior judicial determinations. (Paras 35-36)

Issues: The main issues included whether fresh proceedings could be initiated under the Ceiling Act after prior determinations had attained finality and the applicability of res judicata in ceiling proceedings. (Paras 13, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the initiation of fresh proceedings after the two-year limit is not permissible and that prior judicial findings must be respected unless legally justified. (Paras 35-36)

Result: Writ Petition allowed; notice and proceedings quashed.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’), issued by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow on 06.01.1999, order dated 14.02.2005 passed by the prescribed authority rejecting the petitioners’ objection against the aforesaid notice, an order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the prescribed authority as well as the entire proceedings instituted by the notice issued under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Bindra Prasad, grand father of the petitioners was tenure holder having separate Khata, whereas Randhir Verma, father of the petitioners, was also having his separate holdings. Bindra Prasad had executed various sale-deeds in the year, 1957 transferring an area of 842 Bihgas 18 Biswa 3 Biswansi 9 Kachwansi. The proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated against Randhir Verma by issuing a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act to him. Randhir Verma filed objections and by means of an order dated 24.12.1979, the prescribed authority declared 20 Bigha 5 Biswa 10 Biswansi land of Randhir Verma as surplus land.

4. Randhir Verma has filed an appeal against the order dated 24.12.1979 inter alia on the ground that considering the size of his family, he was entitled to retain 44.67 Bighas land and further that he had transferred 10 Bigha 2 Biswa 7 Biswansi land by means of a registered sale-deed executed in favour of his daughter prior to 24.01.1971 and it could not be included in his holdings while determining the ceiling area. The sale-deed executed by Randhir Verma, in favour of his daughter excluded the area of 10 Bigha, 2 Biswa 7 Biswansi from his holdings and, accordingly, the ceiling area was determined and the surplus land was declared.

5. Subsequently, another notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was issued to Sri Randhir Verma on 16.12.1979 by clubbing the holdings which have already been transferred by Bindra Prasad through various sale-deeds executed in the year, 1957. By means of an order dated 05.04.1982, the Prescribed Authority declared an area of 842 Bighas 18 Biswa 3 Biswansi 9 Kachwansi in terms of irrigated land to be surplus land of the petitioners’ father Randhir Verma.

6. Randhir Verma filed a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 176 of 1982 against the aforesaid order dated 05.04.1982. The appeal was allowed by means of an order dated 11.01.1983 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Lucknow. The order dated 05.04.1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-determination of surplus land, after giving opportunity of hearing to the transferees of Sri Bindra Prasad. The State of U.P. filed a Writ Petition No. 407 of 1983 against the aforesaid order dated 11.01.1983, which was dismissed in limine by means of an order dated 25.01.1983.

7. The petitioners’ father Randhir Verma filed a Writ Petition No. 431 of 1983 and the transferees, who had purchased the land from Bindra Prasad in the year, 1957, filed Writ Petition No.2323 of 1983. Both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 10.10.1984, whereby both the writ petitions were allowed. The notice dated 26.12.1979 issued by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act and all the proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed. A mandamus was issued commanding the opposite parties to restore the entries in the revenue records in favour of the persons who had purchased the land from Sri Bindra Prasad, as they existed immediately before the passing of the order dated 05.04.1982 by the Prescribed Authorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 203

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.Dinesh Verma And Anr. – AppellantVersusState Of U.P. Thru Collector Lucknow And Anr. – Respondent WRIT - C No. - 3000053 of 2005 at Lucknow

Fresh proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot be initiated after prior determinations have attained finality, respecting the principle of res judicata.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Dinesh Verma And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Collector Lucknow And Anr. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 3000053 of 2005 at Lucknow