LexSTATE OF U.P. versus CIVIL JUDGE, NAINITAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ -1 ~ }--- / ~ - STATE OF U:P. A V.· CIVIL JUDGE, NAINITAL & ORS. NOVEMBER 5, 1986 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] B Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act 1960/ Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Rules, 1961: Sections 5, 9 & 10/Rule 19-'Surplus Land'-Determination of- Principle applicable-Is date on which ceiling is imposed by statute. c Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land HoldlDgs Act, 1960 provided that on and from the commencement of the U.P; Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, which clll™' into force on 8.6.1973, no tenure-holder would be entitled to hold in the aggregate thro'!gbout Uttar Pradesh, any land in D excess of the.'ceiling area', as defined in sub-s.(2) ofs.3 of the Act. Since Smt. Amna Begum, the tenure-holder was holding in the aggregate land in excess of the ceiling area, she became liable to surren~ der the surplus lancl. Pursuant to a general notice issued under s.9 to all tenure-holders, holding land in excess of the ceiling area, she did not file any statement before the Prescnbed Authority. After the publication of E the general notice but before she could be served with a notice under s. I 0(2) she died. The Prescribed Authority not knowing of her death issued a notice under s.10(2) calling upon her to show cause why the statement prepared by him under s. l 0( 1) should not be taken as cor- rect. The father of resJiondent No. 4, one of the heirs, filed objections which were. over-ruled, and it was declared that Smt. Amna Begum was . F holding 17 .37 hectares of land aS surplus land. The District Judge holding that since the tenure-holder was dead by the time the notice under s.10(2) was issued, the order of the Pre- scribed Authority passed against a dead person .could not be allowed to stand, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Prescribed Author- G ity and remaI_lded the case. Fresh notices under s.10(2) were issued to the heirs. Respondent No. 3 contended that she held only 91.12 bigbas of land as her one- fourth share and that 12 acres of land had been transferred through registered sale deed for adequate consideration and in gOod faith and H 99 [()() SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C.R. A the land to that extent sbonld be excluded from the holding while de- '>-" tennioing the surplus land and that the determination of the su.-plus land should be made on the basis ?f the share held by each of them as an individual tenure-bolder. B The Prescribed Authority held that there was no surplus land that could be claimed from the holding in question since none of the heirs of deceased tenure-bolder was in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area. The appeal by the State Government against the order of the __..( Prescribed Authority was dismissed by the Civil Judge holding that 7 c Smt. Amoa Begum could not be treated as a tenure-bolder after her death, and that since none of the heirs of Amoa Begum was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area they were not liable to surrender any /).. surplus land. D The petition under Article 226 filed by the State Government. was dismissed holding that the State Government was not entitled to 11ues- lion the correctness of the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Civil Judge as the order of remand of the case passed by the District Judge bad become final. E Allowing the Appeal, ,..l_ HELD: I. The orders passed by the High Court, the Civil Judge and the Prescribed Authority are set aside and the case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal. [I 07D] -. F 2. The reason given by the High Court for holding that the con- tentious urged on behalf of the State Government were barred by the ' ,/"" rule of res judicata is wholly untenable since the District Judge while remanding the case bad not recorded any finding on the merits of the contentions of the parties. He bad set aside the order of the Prescribed -'-. Authority passed earlier only on the gr?""d that a proceeding which G bad been commenced against a dead person was a nullity. He, howe·ver, remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law after issuing notices to the heirs of Smt. Amoa Begum whom be wrongly described as tenure-holders so far as her estate was concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in dismis- -;-· sing the writ p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.