LACCHMAN SINGH versus STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 1192 · Decided: 29-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LACCHMAN SINGH 
v. 
STAT!: OF H.P. AND ORS. 
JAlWARY 29, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Himacha/ Pradesh Ceiling on land Holdings Ac/, 1972-Seclions 9(2) 
and 10-Himachal Pradesh Te11ancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972-Collector 
C declaring !hat appellant had s;rrplus area, in the absence of any objeclions 
from the appellanl-Writ Petit on challenging the order dismissed by High 
Court-Correclness of Jhe order made by Collector challenged a/mos/ after 
14 years before the Commissio11er and not within the stipu/aJed 60 days-On 
remands, Collector dismissed th~ appeal applying the principle of res judicata 
referring to the order made in the writ petition-Writ petilion before High 
D · Courl dismissed-Held, Jhe Higi r Court having decided lhe queslion of surplus 
area in !he earlier wril petilion Jhe Division Bench of High Cour/ was righl 
in dismissing the subsequenl pe. ition-lt was not open to the appellant to re-
agitate the mauer as Jo the SJlrplus area before the Collector or tire 
Commissioner or before the High Court in the subsequent writ petition--
Argument that no opportunity of hearing was given to appellant has no 
E substance-If the appellant was not the excess holder, nothing prevented him 
fi·omjustifYing the same by jilinr objections before the Collector-fl is a clear 
case of not availing of the oppo1 /Unity given-Administrative latt~Principles 
of natural justice. 
F 
After The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 
came into force, a draft statem :nt under the Rules thereunder was served 
on appellant by the Collector stating that he had surplus area of I 08 . .3 
bighas and inviting his objectiJns within 30 days. Appellant did not file 
any objection and the Collecto ·passed an order on 141711975 confirming 
surplus area of 108.3 bighas of the appellant. In the meanwhile, appellant 
G was detained under MISA bet•veen the period from 817175 to 111/77. On 
coming into force of the Hima
0:hal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms 
Act, 1972 w.e.f. 4/10175, in 1he absence of resumption application, 
f 
proprietary rights were conferred on the tenants under the Land Reforms 
Act. Subsequently, appellant filed civil writ petition no. 456 of 1976 
H 
1192 
LACCHMAN SINGH v. S.T A TE 
1193 
challenging the aforesaid orders passed against him and also challengil\g A 
the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the aforesaid Acts. The 
said petition was dismissed. 
Thereafter, appellant filed Misc. Revenue Appeal No. 161 of 1989 
before the Commissioner challenging the order of the C{)llector holding 
that appellant had surplus area of 108.3 bighas. The fact regarding B 
dismissal of an earlier writ petition was not brought to the notice of the 
Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector. On 
remand, the Collector held that in view of the order of the High Court in 
the writ petition, claim of the appellant was barred by the principle of res 
judicata. Appellant's appeal before the Commissioner was dismissed. He C 
again approached the High Court by way of a writ petitiOI\ which was 
also dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed CA 3486/98. Subsequently 
the appellant also filed CA 3487/98 against the earlier- 11rder of High Court 
in CWP 456176. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended in CA 3486/98 I.hilt the D 
appellant was not at all excess holder of the land considering the fact that 
he had a major son; that appellant could not file objections. to the draft 
statement as he was under detention during the peri{)d between 717/1975 
to 111/1977; that in CWP 456176 the question of determination of surplus 
area under the Act did not arise and any observation mode in that order 
in the writ petition cannot affect the rights of the appellant as regards E 
the surplus area; that the collector ought to have decided the case on merits 
and he could not have simply disposed of the case applying the principle 
of resjudicata referring to the order made in cwr 456/1976 and that no 
authority had decided as to the entitlement of the appellant for two units 
taking note of the undisputed fact that the appellant had a major son. In F 
CA 3487 /98, it was contended that the order made by the Collector as 
regards surplus area was bad in law as it was done without giving 
opportunity of hearing as required under Section 9(2) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: I.I. The Collector by the order dated 14.7.1975 declared that 
th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.