http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2392 of 2007

PETITIONER: Prem Kumar and Anr

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      2392            OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20507 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the  writ petition filed by the respondents.  

3.      Primary stand in this appeal is that the respondents,   without impleading the present appellants, filed a writ petition  and without any detailed discussion, the learned Single Judge  allowed the writ petition relying on an order dated 21.3.1986  passed by the prescribed authority which did not have any  effect so far as the present appellants are concerned.  

4.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

5.      A notice was issued under Section 10(2) of U.P.  Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the  ’Act’). The said notice was issued to Bhairo Prasad, Jagannath  Prasad and Ram Prasad and by order dated 13.2.1979 certain  lands were declared to be surplus. An appeal was preferred  against the said order. The learned District Judge, Allahabad  by order dated 3.2.1981 remanded the matter and the  prescribed authority was directed to decide the effect of sale  deeds executed by Jagannath, Bhairo Prasad, Madho Prasad  and Smt. Ganga Devi. The Prescribed Authority decided the  matter by an order dated 21.3.1986 and declared about 107  bighas of land of Jagannath, Madho Prasad  and Ganga Devi  as surplus. There was no challenge to this order.  

6.      The challenge before the High Court was to the order  dated 11.12.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner,  Allahabad Division, Allahabad whereby the appeal filed against   the orders dated 31.1.1994 and 23.9.1995 was dismissed.  

7.      The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily  and rather in a cryptic manner with the following  observations:

       "Learned counsel for the petitioners  submitted that when by the aforesaid order dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

21.3.1986 the Prescribed Authority decided the  matter and declared an area of 107 bighas as  surplus and this order has become final as no  appeal against the same was filed, only an area of  107 bighas could have been taken by the State  and, therefore, the impugned orders dated  25.9.2002 and 30.3.2002 are not sustainable.  

       The submission made by the learned counsel  has got force. The writ petition succeeds and is  partly allowed. The impugned orders dated  30.3.2002 and 25.9.2002 passed by the Prescribed  Authority and the Additional Commissioner,  Allahabad Division, Allahabad respectively are  quashed. It is held that the petitioners have got an  area of 107 bighas as surplus land, possession of  which, if not taken earlier, may be taken by the  State within a period of 2 months from the date of  filing of certified copy of this order."   

8.      The appellants who were not parties before the High  Court pursuant to the permission granted have filed this  appeal. According to them the order dated 21.3.1986 related to  Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi and had nothing to  do so far as the present appellants are concerned. In fact the  Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer in order dated  31.1.1994 has clearly observed that the dispute did not relate  to Ram Prasad and Bhairo Prasad. In the order of the  Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer it was clearly  noted in the orders dated 23.9.1995 and 31.1.1994 that the  orders did not have any relevance so far as the appellants are  concerned.  

9.      Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in  an earlier writ petition i.e. 11749 of 1995 and 13584 of 1996  certain directions had been given which have relevance.  

10.     We find that there is no reference in the impugned order  of the High Court as to the effect of the order dated 21.3.1986  on the lands of Bhairo Prasad and Ram Prasad are concerned.  That being so, without impleading the appellants as parties  the impugned order could not have been passed. We,  therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and  remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. The present  appellants shall be impleaded as parties in the proceedings.  They are granted 8 weeks time to file the counter affidavit, if  any. The High Court shall, if deemed necessary, grant time to  the writ petitioners to file further affidavit. The State of U.P.  may also file counter affidavit, if so advised.  

11.     The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  There will be no  order as to costs.