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

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BUDH SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/09/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6) 146        JT 1995 (7)   372  1995 SCALE  (5)540

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R HANSARIA, J.      The appeal  raises a  question of  some importance with regard to  the effect  of section 38-B, inserted in the U.P. Imposition of  Ceiling on  Land Holdings  Act, 1960, by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976, which had come into force on October 10, 1975. 2.   Section 38-B reads as below :      "No finding or decision given before the      commencement  of  this  section  in  any      proceeding or  on any  issue  (including      any order,  decree or  judgment) by  any      court, tribunal  or authority in respect      of any  matter  governed  by  this  Act,      shall   bar   the   re-trial   of   such      proceeding or  issue under  this Act, in      accordance with  the provisions  of this      Act as amended from time to time." 3.   The need  for finding  out the  effect of the aforesaid section has  arisen because,  on the  proceeding  under  the aforesaid Act being taken up, the Civil Judge, Jalaun, by an order of  May 1,  1975 held  that no  land of  the appellant (respondent No.1  herein) could  be declared  as surplus. On the proceeding  being reinitiated,  the Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer, who is the Prescribed Authority, determined an area of 31.73  acres of  land (in  terms of  irrigated  land)  as surplus. On appeal being preferred, the Civil Judge, Jalaun, modified the order of the Prescribed Authority, as indicated in his  order dated  July 25,  1977. When  a contention  was advanced on  behalf  of  the  appellants  therein  (who  are respondents  herein)   that  the  finding  of  the  previous proceeding operated as res judicata, the learned Civil Judge stated  that   judgment   having   been   delivered   before 10.10.1975, the  same could not operate as res judicata. The respondents approached  the High  Court by filing a petition

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

under Article  226. The view taken by the High Court is that the findings  operate as  res  judicata,  on  the  basis  of pronouncement dated 21st September, 1979 by a Division Bench in Krishan Kumar’s case (Writ Petition No.3073 of 1977). 4.   As section  38-B on  its language  may not  support the stand of  the High  Court, but  keeping in mind the averment made in  the counter-affidavit  of the respondents that more than ten  thousand cases  were decided  by the High Court on the  basis   of  the  view  presently  taken,  it  would  be appropriate to  peruse the  judgment rendered  by  the  High Court in Krishan Kumar’s case, which is not on record. 5.   The counsel  for the  appellant is, therefore, directed to place that judgment on record, and let us know whether it was appealed  against; if  so, what was the result. It would also be  necessary to  know  under  what  circumstances  the second  proceeding   came  to   be  initiated   against  the respondents. A  responsible officer of the State would swear an affidavit  in this  regard. We  allow four weeks time for this purpose.  When the  case shall  be taken  up next,  the records of the Prescribed Authority shall be made available. 6.   Put up for further hearing after four weeks. 7.   Let a  copy of  this order  be served  on  the  learned counsel of the parties urgently.