Summary
The Supreme Court restored a ceiling-surplus declaration under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, holding that once the family-settlement plea had been rejected in an earlier round that attained finality, the tenure-holder's son could not reopen it by claiming lack of separate notice; the second round was an abuse of process and barred by res judicata.
Issues
- Whether, after the plea of a pre-cut-off family settlement had been rejected in ceiling proceedings that attained finality, members of the family could reopen the surplus declaration on the ground that no separate notice under Section 10(2) was served on each of them.
- Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) on the ground of absence of separate notices.
Provisions considered
- Sections 9 and 10, Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960As the tenure-holder filed no statement under Section 9, the Prescribed Authority prepared one and served notice under Section 10(2) on the recorded owner. The later claim that each family member should have received a separate Section 10(2) notice was held to be a device to reopen a concluded matter. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 8)
- Section 5(7), provisos and Explanation I, Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960In the first round the partition relied on was ignored because the suit concerned was instituted after the cut-off date of 24.01.1971; under Explanation I such a declaration is disregarded and no partition is deemed to have taken place. These findings were upheld by the High Court and the SLP was withdrawn. (¶ 4)
- Section 11, Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960The son's application under Section 11 to recall the 1974 order, claiming joint holding and lack of notice, was described as an innovative ploy amounting to abuse of process. (¶¶ 5, 8)
Held
- Once the objection based on the family settlement had been rejected by the ceiling authorities, the District Judge and the High Court, and the special leave petition against it was withdrawn, the finding attained finality; a fresh round of proceedings by family members on the plea that separate notices were required was a ruse, an abuse of the process of law, and barred by res judicata. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8)
- The High Court erred in law and on facts in quashing the surplus declaration on the ground that separate notices were not served on each family member after the family partition, since that partition had already been disregarded in the concluded first round. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The Court agreed with the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) that the Prescribed Authority should not have reopened the matter by its order of 23.09.1985, and observed that a departmental enquiry against the officer would have been warranted, though it was too late to issue notice. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The Court noted the land-reform purpose of the 1960 Act, namely declaring land above the ceiling surplus and redistributing it to landless and marginal farmers, and directed that the surplus land be taken over and distributed accordingly. (¶¶ 2, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 21.02.2022 set aside and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) upheld; District Magistrate, Hardoi directed to take possession of the declared surplus land immediately and distribute it to the landless in accordance with law.