Limited remand cannot reopen finally decided issues; only the remanded land-categorisation question may be reconsidered.

A remand confined to deciding whether land was irrigated or unirrigated did not reopen issues already finally determined in the earlier appellate order. Final findings on the appellant's share, exclusion of grove land, the bona fide nature of a sale, and the option regarding canal-covered land remained binding. The authorities erred by treating the entire ceiling matter as reopened and by disregarding that finality. Their orders were therefore liable to be set aside to that extent, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination of ceiling area on the basis of the earlier concluded findings, leaving only the land-categorisation issue open on evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authorities, after a limited remand confined to the categorisation of land as irrigated or unirrigated, could reopen issues already finally decided in the earlier appellate order and affirmed by the High Court.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had accepted the appellant's 1/10th share, excluded grove land, treated a particular sale as bona fide, and permitted choice regarding canal-covered land. The subsequent remand by the High Court was restricted only to reconsideration of whether specified lands were irrigated or unirrigated under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. That remand did not unsettle the issues already concluded. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority proceeded on the assumption that the entire ceiling case had been reopened, thereby ignoring the finality attaching to the earlier appellate findings.

Conclusion: The authorities could not disturb issues that had attained finality, and their orders were liable to be set aside to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the matter was remitted for fresh determination of ceiling area on the basis of the earlier final findings, while leaving the land-categorisation issue open for decision on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand confined to a specific issue does not reopen matters already finally decided, and administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must give effect to the finality of those concluded findings while deciding only the remanded question.

---