PREM KUMAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 07-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PREM KUMAR AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 7, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Non-impleadment of party-
.... 
Respondents, without impleading the Appellants, filed writ petition-High 
c 
Court disposed of the same summarily in a cryptic manner-On facts, .held, 
without impleading Appellants as parties, the impugned order of High Court 
could not have been passed-Matter remitted !o High Court for fresh 
consideration-Appellants directed to be impieaded as parties in the 
proceedings-UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, I 960-s. I 0(2). 
D 
In the present appeal, the primary contention is that the Respondents, 
without impleading the Appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed 
discussion, the High Court allowed the same relying on a 1986 order passed 
by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings Act, 1960, which did not have any effect so far as the Appellants 
were concerned and related to three other persons. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and 
rather in a cryptic manner. There is no reference in its order as to the effect 
of the order dated 21.3.1986. That being so, without impleading the appellants 
F as parties the impugned order could not have been passed. Therefore, the 
impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to 
A_ 
it for fresh consideration. The appellants shall be impleaded as parties in the 
proceedings. [Paras 7 and 10) (103-G-H; 104-F-G) 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2392 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43437 of 2002. 
\--
Rakesh Dwivedi and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants. 
H 
102 
PREMKUMARv. STATEOFU.P. (PASAYAT,J.] 
103 
S.R. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Nitin Bhardwaj and Mirdula A 
Ray Bharadwaj for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
,,_ 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the 
respondents. 
3. Primary stand in this appeal is that the respondents, without impleading 
B 
the present appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed discussion, C 
the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on an order dated 
21.3.1986 passed by the prescribed authority which did not have any effect 
so far as the present appellants are concerned. 
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
D 
5. A notice was issued under Section 10(2) ofU.P. Imposition of Ceiling 
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the 'Act'). The said notice was issued 
to Bhairo Prasad, Jagannath Prasad and Ram Prasad and by order dated 
13.2.1979 certain lands were declared to be surplus. An appeal was preferred 
against the said order. The learned District Judge, Allahabad by order dated E 
3.2.1981 remanded the matter and the prescribed authority was directed to 
decide the effect of sale deeds executed by Jagannath, Bhairo Prasad, Madho 
Prasad and Smt. Ganga Devi. The Prescribed Authority decided the matter by 
an order dated 21.3.1986 and declared about 107 bighas ofland of Jagannath, 
Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi as surplus. There was no challenge to this 
order. 
F 
·"' 
6. The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 11.12.1995 
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad 
whereby the appeal filed against the orders dated 31.1.1994 and 23.9.1995 was 
dismissed. 
7. The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and rather in 
a cryptic manner with the following observations: 
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when by the 
aforesaid order C:ated 21.3 .1986 the Prescribed Authority decided the 
G 
H 
104 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
matter and declared an area of 107 bighas as surplus and this order 
has become final as no appeal against the same was filed, only an area 
of I 07 'Jighas could have been taken by the State and, therefore, the 
impugned orders dated 25.9.2002 and 30.3.2002 are not sustainable. 
The submission made by the learned counsel has got force. The 
writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned orders 
dated 30.3.2002 and 25.9.2002 passed b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.