Back
ARIJIT PASAYAT, AFTAB ALAM
State of U. P. etc. – Appellant
Versus
Roshan Singh – Respondent
judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Civil Misc. Writ Petitions 17464 of 1984, 8825 of 1995 and 19050 of 1995. Challenge in the first writ petition was to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority.
3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
After issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act an area of 17 Bighas 10 Biswas and 2 Biswansis of land of the respondent-Roshan Singh was declared as surplus. Thereafter consolidation operation commenced. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Act were initiated on 28.3.1974 and the respondent-Roshan Singh was granted opportunity to file his response to the notice. The objection was filed on 25.5.1974 and by order dated 14.1.1980 the Prescribed Authority after determining the surplus gave opportunity to the respondent to indicate the choice of land to be retained. The respondent did not indicate any choice. Therefore by order dated 8.4.1982, 17 Bighas 10 Biswas and
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. While multiple references are made to the case AIR 2008 SC 1190 (Roshan Singh (D) by LR's), there is no clear indication in the list that subsequent decisions have overruled or criticized this case. Without explicit language such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized," it is not possible to definitively identify any case as bad law based on the provided information.
Followed/Confirmed Treatment:
AIR 2008 SC 1190 (Roshan Singh (D) by LR's, AIR 2008 SC 1190): This case is frequently cited and referenced multiple times throughout the list, often in conjunction with other rulings or in support of legal arguments. The repetition suggests that it is considered a binding or authoritative precedent that continues to hold legal relevance.
(2008) 2 SCC 488 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Roshan Singh): Multiple entries reference this case, indicating it is a key case on the treatment of Section 151 CPC and related procedural principles. Its consistent citation implies it is followed in subsequent rulings.
K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, AIR 2011 SCC 275: Cited alongside Roshan Singh, indicating it is considered a relevant and followed decision in the context of the legal issues discussed.
Other references to the same case (AIR 2008 SC 1190) across multiple entries suggest a uniform treatment of this case as good law and authoritative.
Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment:
Several references mention the case in passing or in support of procedural or jurisdictional principles (e.g., jurisdictional limits, inherent powers), but do not specify whether the case has been affirmed, distinguished, or criticized in subsequent rulings.
Some entries mention "reliance was placed on the decision" or "in support of his submissions," which indicates acceptance but not necessarily that the case has been explicitly followed or that its authority is uncontested.
The references to other cases (e.g., Bhagat Singh, Ram Prakash Agarwal) are in different contexts, but without explicit treatment language, their relation to Roshan Singh's treatment remains uncertain.
Uncertain Cases:
Cases like AIR 1941 Calcutta 670 (Bhagat Singh) and AIR 1970 SC 997 (K.K. Velusamy) are cited, but without clear indication of their current treatment status relative to the other cases.
Some references to procedural principles and inherent powers (e.g., State of U.P. & Ors. v. Roshan Singh, 2008) are generic and do not specify whether subsequent jurisprudence has upheld, criticized, or overruled these principles.
**Source :** BUDHIMAN SINGH. VS DISTRICT JUDGE, FATEHPUR - Allahabad Hansabai Shripati Bhosale VS Parubai Gopal Bhosale - Punjab and Haryana Swarn Singh VS Surinder Kumar - Delhi Paramount Enterprises Ltd. VS S. D. Surie (D) Thr. L. Rs. - Supreme Court Nand Lal VS Roop Chand Sharma - Rajasthan Eagle Agro Farm Private Limited VS Eagle Soraj Townships Private Ltd. - Bombay R. V. SANAL KUMAR VS N. GANGADHARAN NADAR - Kerala Ramesh Chand VS Usha Devi - Madhya Pradesh Prashant Bhagwandas Bajoriya VS Bharti Bharat Bajoriya - Bombay Chandrahas, S/o Shiviram Kalyani VS Birkumar, S/o Late Hiralal - Chhattisgarh Vidur Impex And Traders Pvt. Ltd. VS Pradeep Kumar Khanna - Delhi Rajesh Kumar VS Manisha @ Lalita - Uttarakhand Nirmal Kaur VS Kirpal Singh - Punjab and Haryana Bhavana Kirit Vora VS Kushal Surendra Shah - Current Civil Cases Bhavana Kirit Vora VS Kushal Surendra Shah - Bombay Palanisamy VS Mariyaee Ammal (Died) - Madras Palanisamy VS Mariyaee Ammal - Madras SHIV KUMAR VS GURDEEP KAUR - Uttarakhand In Matter Of Ram Sarup Lugani VS Nirmal Lugani - Delhi Maya Sanjay Khandare VS State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Murtizapur, Tq. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola - Bombay Mitsui Osk Lines Ltd. VS Polestar Maritime Limited - Gujarat Vanlalchami Bawihtlung VS Lalngaihawmi, D/o. Chalthangi (L) - Gauhati Sirikonda Madhava Rao VS N. Hemalatha - Telangana Prabhat Kishor VS Rukmani Devi - Uttarakhand Union of India VS Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi Biki Prasad Jaiswal VS Dinesh Prasad Jaiswal - Calcutta Danish Memon VS Nusra Iqbal - Current Civil Cases DANISH MEMON vs NUSRA IQBAL - Madras Danish Memon VS Nusra Iqbal - Madras Sk. Mansur Ali VS Kulnath Kapoor - Calcutta Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. vs Rajendra Yeshwant Shah - Bombay Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. vs Rajendra Yeshwant Shah - Bombay State Of W. B. VS Karan Singh Binayak - Supreme Court Arjun Singh VS Mohindra Kumar - Supreme Court
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
