LexMANSOOR ALI KHAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANSOOR ALI KHAN AND ORS. A v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. NOVEMBER 1,1991 •'' [N.M. KASLIWAL AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] B U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960/U.P. Imposi- tion of Ceiling on Land (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 20of1976): Ss. 9(2). 12131 (3)-Determination of surplus land-Tenure holder died before notice for initial determination~Redetermination c -Notice-Whether to be sent to all the heirs-Jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority-Whether depends on issuance of notice under section 9(2). The tenure-holder of the land in dispute-father of the appellants-<lied on 20.8.1974, leaving behind, besides the four ap- pellants, three other sons, three daughters and a widow as his legal D heirs and representatives. After his death a notice under s.10 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, proposing to declare certain lands as surplus, addressed to him, was served on his son--eppellant no. 1 who filed objections. The Pre- scribed Authority partly upheld the objections and by its judgment dated 29.4.1975 determined some land as surplus. The appellants E filed an appeal before the Civil Judge. Meanwhile the Ceiling Act was amended by the Uttar Praduh _ Act 20 of 1976, s. 31 (3) whereof pl'.ovided for redetermination of surplus lands within two years from 10.10.1975 in cases where or- ders declaring lands as surplus had been made prior to that date, F notwithstanding any appeal against the original order of determina- tion of surplus land. A fresh notice under s. 10 (2) of the Act WA~ issued to appellant no. 1 proposing to declare certain lands as sur7 plus. After considering the appellant's objection the Prescribed Au~ thority by its order dated 22.12.1976 determined some land as sur- plus, holding that the said lands were surplus which were owned by G .... " the deceased as tenure holder on the appointed day. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the District Judge.- In the writ petition preferred by the appellants, the High Court held that previous determination of surplus lands by the Prescribed H Authority did not operate as res judicata, and that the appellate 159 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A authority was justified in ignoring the sale deed dated 27.10.1971. B It, however, held that the determination about some plots of lands · had not been properly made, and remanded the case to the appel- late authority with the direction to it to issue notice to the other brothers. of the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the ap- peal by special leave to this Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the proceed- ing for re-determination of ceiling land could not have been initi- ated by the Prescribed Authority until notice under s. 9 (2) of the Act was issued to all the heirs of the deceased tenure bolder; that since the redetermination proceedings were initiated after Act 20 of C 1976 was enforced, the redetermination could only be made under the provisions of the Act as amended by Act 20 of 1976 and in view of the changes in the Ceiling Act there was no surpJus land liable to be vested in the State; that as two years had elapsed from the en- forcement of Act 20 of 1976, no redetermination was permissible thereafter. D E F G H Disposing of the appeal and remanding the case to the Pre- scribed Authority, this Court, HELD: I.Section 31(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land. (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 20 of 1976) authorised the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus land in relation to the tenure bolder if initiated within two years from October 10, 1975. [p. 164 D-E] In the instant case, the previous determination of ceiling was made before 10.10.1975. Accordingly, under s. 31(3) of U.P. Act 20 of 1976, the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the said proceedings and such jurisdiction did not depend on issuance of notice under s. 9 (2) of the Act to the tenure holder and/or his successors-in-interest. [p. 164 Ei"] Shantnu Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 1977 Allahabad Law Reports p. 564, referred to. 2. Although the Prescribed Authority bad jurisdiction to ini- tiate the proceeding for redetermination of surplus land and he had hi fact initiated such proceeding within two years as referred to in s. 31(3) of U.P. Act 20 of 1976, yet, such determination could not have been made without affording to the heirs and lega
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.