Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BUDH SINGH (D) BY LRS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/1996
BENCH:
FAIZAN UDDIN, B.L. HANSARIA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.L. Hansaria,
This appeal was once heard earlier and in the order
passed on 25th September, 1995 it was stated that as the
High Court in the impugned judgment has relied on the
earlier pronouncement by Division Bench of the same High
Court in Krishan Kumar’s (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3073
of 1977), it would be appropriate to peruse that judgment,
which being not on record a direction was given to place the
same for our perusal. It has been so done. We have gone
through the judgment and, according to us, the learned
single Judge who rendered impugned judgment misread the view
taken by the Division Bench in Krishan Kumar’s case. In that
judgment, the Division Bench has really held that section
38-B was wide enough to "capture finding or decisions given
under the Ceiling Act as well prior to the commencement of
section 38-B". It has really not been held in that case
that "in the subsequent ceiling proceedings, the earlier
finding would be binding unless it can be shown that after
the earlier ceiling proceedings there occurred some
amendments in the Ceiling Act which justified that reopening
of a finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings" as
observed in the impugned judgment. No doubt in Krishan
Kumar’s case as argument was advanced to cut down the width
of section 38-B by inviting the attention of the Bench to
section 31(5); the Bench, however, held that the section had
no impact on the applicability
of section 38-B.
In view of the above, the view taken in the impugned
judgment cannot be upheld. The same is, therefore, set aside
and the decision of the Prescribed Authority rendered on
29th June, 1976, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court
by its judgment dated July 25, 1977 is restored. The High
Court’s remand order has, therefore, no leg to stand.
The appeal is allowed accordingly, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.