LexSTATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus ROSHAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 787 + STATE OF U.P. & ORS. A v. ROSHAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. (C.A. Nos. 453-455 of 2008) JANUARY 16, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: ~ s.151-Powers of court under- Scope of- Tenure-holder not fifing statutory appeal against order declaring his land in c ,' excess of ceiling limit - After a lapse of about 2 years filirig ! application u/s 151 CPC before Prescribed Authority - ' Application rejected -Appeal dismissed - High Court allowing the application - Held: Provisions of s.151 CPC would not be available when there is an alternative remedy- Tenure-holder D having not availed the remedy of filing appeal uls 12 of the Ceiling Act, judgment of High Court cannot be sustained - UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954 - s:12. Certain land of the respondent tenure-holder was E declared as surplus under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954. He did not file any appeal. After a lapse of about two years, the tenure-holder filed an application under Section 151 CPC · before the Prescribed Authority contending that during ceiling proceedings, consolidation proceedings were also F in operation wherein different area was indicated, as a result of which his holding was reduced. The claim was rejected. The appeal filed by the tenure-holder was also dismissed. He then filed a writ petition before the High Court. Meanwhile the surplus land was distributed G whereagainst two more writ petitions were filed. The High Court allowed the first writ petition and on that basis also. allowed the subsequent writ petitions. In the instant appeals filed by the State Government, 787 H 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A it was contended for the appellants, inter alia, that when '+ B statutorily an opportunity and/or forum was provided which was not availed, the application u/s 151 CPC was not maintainable. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that provisions of Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is an alternative remedy. The object of the section is to supplement and neither to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC c nor to override or evade other express provisions. It cannot be invoked when there is express provision even under which the relief can be claimed by the aggrieved party. The operative field of power being thus restricted, the same cannot be risen to inherent power. The inherent 0 powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on it. If there are express provisions covering a particular topic, power u/s 151 CPC cannot be exercised in that regard. Section 151 CPC confers on the Court power of making such orders as may be necessary E for the ends of justice. [Para 7) [792-A, B & CJ Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 993 and State of WB. & Ors. vs. Karan Singh Binayak & Ors. 2002(4) sec 188 - relied on. 1.2 In matters with which the CPC does not deal with, F the Court will exercise its inherent power to do justice between the parties which is warranted under the circumstances and which the necessities of the case require. If there are specific provisions of the CPC dealing with the particular topic and they expressly or by G necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the Court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the CPC. The inherent powers of the Court H are not to be used for the benefit of a litigant who has ). ; STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. ROSHAN SINGH (DEAD) 789 BY LRS. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] t remedy under the CPC. Similar is the position vis-a-vis other statutes. [Para 7] [791-E, F, G & HJ A 1.3 Undisputedly, an aggrieved person is not remediless under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954. The conclusions of the High Court B arP. not only cryptic but also without indication of any basis. Besides, the application under Section 151 CPC ~ was filed long after the period provided for preferring ah ,.. appeal under Section 12 of the Act. The judgment of the ' ,. High Court impugned in the instant appeals cannot be sustained and are set aside. [Para 7, 8 & 11] [792-D & E; c 794-F] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 453- 455 of 2008. From the final Judg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.