Satvir Singh And Ors. vs Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd.
- SCC1989 Supp (2) SCC 676
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court has previously remitted a matter for fresh disposal on a specific question, and the High Court on remand has determined the parties' respective rights in the land, a party seeking to challenge that determination must do so through the ordinary appellate process and cannot seek to reopen the substantive findings on remand unless there are grounds recognized by law to do so. Where land that is the subject of competing claims of agricultural tenancy rights has been partially allotted to third parties in reliance on a determination that such land was surplus, those allotted portions must be excluded from the area in which either of the original claimants can assert rights, as the State's action in allotment creates a separate interest that supersedes the prior dispute. Where a court determines that a party has rights in a portion of land that falls within the ceiling limit under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the competent authority must conduct a fresh determination of ceiling surplus taking into account the court's finding of the party's interest, and the party is entitled to possession of the area within the ceiling limit determined on that fresh basis, with the balance vesting in the State.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. In Civil Appeal No. 878 of 1974 disposed of on 29.11.1984, this Court remitted Second Appeal No. 1563 of 1969 to the Allahabad High Court for a fresh disposal. The High Court examined the question whether the respondent's claim of bhumidari right or the appellant's claim of thikadari right in the land was sustainable in law. It came to the conclusion that the lease was agricultural and on that basis the respondent-company had become adhivasi in respect of 158 bighas of land. It is further found that the claim with regard to 158 bighas and odd of land had already been negatived by this Court and no dispute with reference to the same survived. The operative portion of the High Court's judgment ran thus :
For what we have said above, the appeal succeeds partly and the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding Delhi Cloth & General Mills as Adhivasi of the entire area of land i.e. 376 bighas 16 biswas and 13 biswansis is set aside. On our finding Delhi Cloth and General Mills is Adhivasi and Sirdar of the land as described below :
(i) 75 bighas 8 biswas 8 biswansis, and
(ii) 156 bighas 11 biswas and 5-1/2 biswansis.
In the light of observations made above the Prescribed Authority will re-determine the surplus area with Delhi Cloth & General Mills and the land-holder.
3. This matter was taken up for hearing on several dates before us and ultimately counsel appearing for both sides have accepted the position that the claim of the appellants was confined to 72 bighas, 15 biswas and 10-1/2 biswansis only. It has been conceded in an affidavit filed by Jasbir Singh in this Court that 8 bighas and 7 biswas of land have been allotted to Allottees who are in possession on the basis that the said land was surplus in the hands of the parties. These lands have, therefore, to be excluded from the 72 bighas, 15 biswas and 10-1/2 biswansis of land in which the appellants claim interest.
4. The assertion of the State of Uttar Pradesh that most of the lands in dispute have been taken over by the State as ceiling surplus land is not disputed. On account of the fact that ceiling surplus had been determined in the hands of the respondent-company and by our present order holding that the appellants have interest in regard to about 64 bighas of land out of the land in dispute, a fresh determination of the surplus has to be done. The appellant should be entitled to be put into possession of the lands out of 64 bighas which would be within the ceiling limit. We, therefore, direct that the competent authority shall proceed to determine the ceiling surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 within three months from today and once that is done, the appellants shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the area coming within the ceiling limit and the balance shall vest in the Uttar Pradesh Government. The competent authority shall forward a copy of his determination within two weeks after three months to the Registry of this Court.
5. We make it clear on the basis of the Statement made by counsel of the appellants and the respondent-company that there is no inter-se claim on either side against the other.
6. The matter shall be re-listed after four months from today.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free