TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Lack of Notice in Land Ceiling Proceedings Renders Subsequent Orders Illegal</h1> <h3>Kamal Krishan Rastogi Versus State of Bihar & Another</h3> The Supreme Court held that the reopening of a land ceiling proceeding under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 without notice to the ... - Issues involved: Land ceiling proceeding reopened u/s 45-B of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 without notice to land-holder; Validity of subsequent orders passed by revenue authorities questioned.Summary:Issue 1: Reopening of Land Ceiling Proceeding u/s 45-B without Notice:The case involved a land ceiling proceeding that was reopened u/s 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 without giving any notice to the land-holder, Sarju Madhav Rastogi. The Collector's order to reopen the proceeding was challenged as illegal due to lack of notice.Issue 2: Validity of Subsequent Orders:Subsequent to the reopening, the land-holder was shown to hold surplus land, leading to a series of orders by the revenue authorities. The heirs of Sarju Madhav Rastogi contested the legality of these orders, arguing that the initial reopening order without notice rendered all subsequent orders illegal and unsustainable.In the High Court, one judge opined that the land-holder's participation in the proceeding after reopening precluded challenging the validity of the Collector's order. Another judge agreed but emphasized the importance of notice in reopening proceedings. However, the High Court upheld the subsequent orders despite the illegal reopening order.The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's decision, highlighting that the land-holder's participation did not cure the illegality of the reopening order. The Court noted that the subsequent orders were unsustainable as they were made against a deceased person without involving his heirs. Therefore, the judgment and orders of the revenue authorities were deemed unsustainable in law, and were set aside.The Court clarified that its decision did not prevent the State Government from reexamining the case records and taking appropriate action u/s 45-B of the Act if warranted by the evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
