Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration of land to be surplus – Case of the respondent-son of the main recorded land owner that there has been a family settlement between the parties way back in the year 1967 whereby shares of all the family members have already been determined, thus, cannot be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one tenure holder-respondent’s father and as such land cannot be declared as surplus – However, the Prescribed Authority held that family settlement could not be relied, and passed order declaring some part of land as surplus – District judge reduced the surplus land holding that in the view of explanation
1 to s.5(7), since the suit was instituted after the cut-off date 24.01.71, it would be deemed that no partition took place – Upon remand, the land declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority – Said order upheld by the High Court and Special Leave Petition thereagainst dismissed as withdrawn – Orders attaining finality in first round of litigation – However, the respondent moved application before the Prescribed Authority claiming that they were joint holders of land and were not given separate notice, and order of the Prescribed Authority be re-called – Prescribed Authority again issued notice to all the respondents – However, the Additional Commissioner held that once the matter had been settled and had attained finality, it should not have been raked up again – Writ petition by the respondent – Allowed by the High Court holding that since after the family partition, separate notice was not given to each of the tenure holder,the entire procedure initiated by the Prescribed Authority vitiated and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner – Correctness:
Held: Respondent’s attempt to re-open the matter is nothing short of abuse of process – Once the entire objection regarding the family settlement rejected not only by all the authorities, but also by the High Court and then by this Court, no occasion for starting a fresh round of litigation which were nothing less than an abuse of the process of law, apart from being barred by Res Judicata – In order of the Additional Commissioner, stringent comment made on the Prescribed Authority, that this decision by the sub-ordinate court also raises question on the integrity of the Prescribed Authority” – Views of the Additional Commissioner that the entire mischief has been done by the Prescribed Authority, who should not have interfered in this matter, is accepted – However, it is too late in the day to issue a notice for an order passed in the year 1985 by the Prescribed Authority, though this is indeed a case where a departmental enquiry should have been instituted against the concerned officer – Order of the High Court set aside – District Magistrate directed to immediately take possession of the surplus land as declared surplus and let the same be distributed to the landless or in accordance with law. [Paras 8-12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.