Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.6403 OF 2009
Sheetla Devi & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 05.01.2008 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.359 of 2008
whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellants herein.
2. This appeal involves a short point as would be
clear from a few facts mentioned hereinbelow.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.03.12
16:36:07 IST
Reason:
1
3. The matter relates to the land, which was subject
matter of the ceiling proceedings under the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act”).
4. One Ram Bharose Lal originally held the land in
question. The proceedings in relation to his
entitlement to hold the land after the Act came into
force began on 30.01.1974 with issuance of notice to
him under Section 10 (2) of the Act.
5. Since 30.01.1974 till passing of the impugned
order by the High Court on 05.01.2000, out of which
this appeal arises, the matter relating to the land in
question was being dealt with either by the Prescribed
Authority or the Appellate Authority under the Act and
then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction in
several rounds.
6. On the death of the original holder, his wife–
appellant No.1 and sonappellant No.2 herein have
been pursuing the matter.
2
7. By order dated 30.09.1974, the Prescribed
Authority, out of the total land measuring 23.12 acres,
declared 5.08 acres to be the land in excess of the
ceiling limits prescribed under the Act in the hands of
the holder of the land.
8. This issue then became the subject matter of the
appeals. Eventually, the Prescribed Authority, by order
dated 07/14.04.1981, declared 2.90 acres of land to
be in excess in the hands of holder of the land. It was
accordingly declared surplus for being vested in the
State in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
9. The appellants then again raised the issue in
second round of litigation and tried to revive the
proceedings by making an application for restoration
in an appeal which was decided by the Appellate
Authority under the Act. They were unsuccessful in
their attempt and, therefore, carried the issue in the
writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court,
3
giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of
special leave in this Court.
10. It is with these background facts, the matter has
come to this Court in this appeal.
11. So, the short question is whether the High Court
was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ
petition.
12. Heard Mr. Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel
for the respondentState.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants had mainly
argued three points before the High Court
unsuccessfully. Those three points were also
reiterated before this Court.
14. First, the Appellate Authority while passing the
order, which was impugned in the writ petition, did
not ensure compliance of the earlier order of the High
Court, which was passed in the appellants’ writ
petition; Second, the appeal before the Appellate
4
Authority under the Act was not filed by the appellants
(writ petitioners) but was filed by some imposter on
their behalf and, therefore, inquiry on this question
should have been held; and Third, an issue regarding
one order as to whether it was merged in the appellate
order or not and what is its effect should also have
been examined in its proper perspective.
15. In reply, learned counsel for the respondentState
supported the impugned order and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length and on perusing the record in the light of list
of dates filed by the parties, we find no merit in this
appeal.
17. The High Court has repelled these arguments
and, in our view, rightly.
18. We find that the litigation, out of which this
appeal arises and now which is brought to this Court,
is pursued by the appellants only with a view to keep
5
the issue relating to vesting of the land in question
alive which stood vested in the State in the year 1981
itself.
19. Indeed, in our view, the excess land measuring
2.90 acres is no more available having stood vested
with the State in 1981. There is no ground available
to the appellants to revive the ceiling proceedings by
taking recourse to filing one application or the other
including the one under consideration.
20. The question, as to whether the restoration
application should have been allowed or not, was gone
into by the Courts below and was rightly rejected.
Similarly, the question as to whether the appeal before
the Appellate Authority under the Act was filed by
some imposter, as alleged by the appellants, was
wholly misconceived and was rightly not entertained,
and lastly, the issue of merger of order was equally
misplaced having no bearing on the issue. All the
three arguments, in our view, had no factual and legal
6
foundation. They were, therefore, rightly rejected by
the High Court.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 12, 2019
7