Sheetla Devi and Another vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Collector / District Magistrate

Sheetla Devi & Anr. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Uttar Pradesh …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by clear from a few facts mentioned hereinbelow. 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