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

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHER SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  learned single  of the Allahabad High Court, made on August 10,  1984 dismissing  Writ petition  No.2589/82.  The admitted  position   is  Ram   Het  had  filed  a  suit  for declaration under  Section 6  of the  Urban Land  (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,  1976. The competent authority prepared the draft statement  and issued the notice and after hearing the objections observed  that the declarant was in possession of 1146.0430  sq.  mts.  of  land  in  excess  of  the  ceiling prescribed. Thereon, an appeal was filed before the District Judge. Pending  disposal of  the appeal, the declarent died. The  District   Judge  remitted   the   matter   for   fresh consideration  to   the  competent   authority.  Again   the competent authority  by its  order  dated  August  17,  1981 determined the  excess vacant  land as 1146.0430 sq.mts. The respondents again  filed an appeal before the District Judge who Judge  remitted the  matter to  the competent authority. Against the remand order, the Government filed writ petition which was dismissed. Thus, this appeal. it is contended that the only  question that  requires to  be decided is: whether the legal  representatives can  claim proportionate  shares, after the  demise of the declarant? The High Court has given a  finding   that  the   appropriate  date,   on  which  the entitlement has  to be  considered, is  date  on  which  the declaration under  Section 6  was filed and on that date Ram Het was  the owner and filed the declaration in his capacity as  holder   of  the   vacant  urban   land.   Under   these circmstances,  after   the  demise  of  the  declarant,  the question would  be: whether the lagal representatives of the holder of the urban vacant land could claim any deduction on the basic of their intestate of testamentary succession? The crucial date  is the  sate of  the declaration  filed  under Section  6(1)  before  the  competent  authority.  When  the declaration under  Section 6(1)  was filed,  Ram Het was the holder of the urban vacant land and he accordingly filed the declaration. After  the demise, the question of intestate or the testamentary  succession does  not arise.  The  District Judge, therefore,  was not  right is  remanding  the  matter again for  fresh consideration  and computation;  Thus,  the

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

High Court  is not  correct  in  not  interfering  with  the appellate order  though it  found  that  it  made  a  little difference.      Under these  circumstances, the  appeal is allowed. The order of  the High  Court stands  set  aside  and  the  writ petition is  allowed. The  order of  the appellate authority stands quashed  and that  of the  competent authority stands upheld. No costs.