2003 (12) TMI 638 - SC - Indian Laws

District Judge's Decision Upheld: Case Sent Back for Fresh Evaluation of Land Categories and Surplus Allocation.

K.P. DWIVEDI Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The SC set aside the impugned orders, reinstating the finality of the District Judge's judgment. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority for ... Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 - challenged the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the High Court - exclusion of certain lands transferred bona fide - Joint family property and appellant had only 1/10th share in the same - HELD THAT:- In our considered opinion, there Is a glaring mistake in the impugned order dated 29.3.1996 of the Prescribed Authority passed after remand in treating the earlier order dated 05.8.1977 passed in appeal by the District Judge to have been totally set aside by the earlier order of the High Court dated 19.01.1979 passed in writ petition against the order of the District Judge dated 05.8.1977. From the order of the High Court extracted, it is clear that the whole order of the District Judge was not set aside. It was set aside only with respect to categorisation of lands in the two villages and the remand was restricted to fresh determination of the same. The observations that 'no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised hereafter' before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority' only meant that the remand would be restricted to re-determination of the nature of the land and all other issues decided which have not been disturbed of the order of the District Judge in appeal shall not be allowed to be re-agitated. From the contents of the order of the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that the writ petition of the holder of the land against the judgment of the District Judge had only succeeded with an order of the remand limited to re-examination of the nature of the lands. In all other respect, the order of the District Judge was confirmed prohibiting reopening of the same. We have already mentioned above that the order of the District Judge passed in appeal dated 05.8.1977 was not challenged by the State of U.P. and therefore, that order to the extent it was in favour of the appellant, had attained finality and could not have been disturbed. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in their orders passed on 29.3.1996 and 13.3.1997 respectively, overlooked this aspect of the case of the finality of the order of the District Judge dated 05.8.1977. They misdirected themselves by assuming that the whole case was open before them for reconsideration and re-determination of the ceiling area. In the second writ petition filed by the appellant to the High Court against the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act after remand, the learned Single Judge took no care to re-examine the contents of the orders previously passed and which had attained finality to the extent indicated in those orders. The High Court by the impugned order dated 09.5.1997 cursorily examined the case and wrongly dismissed it as being without merit. In the result the appeal succeeds, by remanding the case to the prescribed Authority, with the directions made above. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Issues Involved: The appeal arises from proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority and the High Court regarding categorization of land as irrigated or unirrigated, exclusion of certain lands, and determination of surplus land.Proceedings Summary: The appellant claimed exclusion of certain lands transferred bona fide, lands covered by a canal, and 'grove' land. Dispute arose over the classification of lands as irrigated or unirrigated, joint family property share, and a sale deed. The Prescribed Authority declared certain acres as surplus land. The District Judge partially allowed the appeal, excluding 'grove' land and validating a sale deed. The High Court remanded the case for fresh evidence on land categorization.Impugned Orders: The Prescribed Authority's order after remand wrongly treated the District Judge's order as set aside entirely. The Appellate Authority upheld this decision. The Supreme Court found errors in disregarding the finality of the District Judge's order and misinterpretation of the High Court's remand directive.Decision and Remand: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders affecting the finality of the District Judge's judgment. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to re-determine the ceiling limit based on the District Judge's judgment. The nature of land as irrigated or unirrigated will be decided according to the Prescribed Authority's 1996 order. The appellant will be given a fresh opportunity to surrender surplus land as per the Act.Conclusion: The appeal succeeds, and the case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority for re-determination of the ceiling limit and surplus land based on the District Judge's judgment. The categorization of land as irrigated or unirrigated will be decided based on evidence, and the appellant will have the option to surrender surplus land. No costs are awarded in this matter.